CLAYBORNE
v.
GOLDEN KRUST FRANCHISING, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, compelling the parties to arbitrate the plaintiff's claims and staying the action pending arbitration.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims were subject to arbitration. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Golden Krust Franchising Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds asserted are all subject to arbitration [DE 12] (the “Motion”) and the February 10, 2023 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Panayottta Augustin-Birch (the “Report”) [DE 24]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 24] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 24] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 24] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 24] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. The Motion [DE 12] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED AS PART as follows: a. The parties are hereby COMPELLED to arbitrate the claims Plaintiff pled in the Complaint; b. This action is hereby STAYED pending arbitration; c. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 27th day of February, 2023.
j f / a j; ii As j if fas ae? A 4 KA AYA AYA NE EGC
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)