SEDNA AIRE USA INC.
v.
SUNOLOGI, 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 district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny motions to enforce a settlement agreement due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, modifying the dismissal to be without prejudice.
Plaintiffs sought to enforce a settlement agreement, while individual defendants moved to set it aside. The magistrate judge recommended denying these…
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 Motion To Enforce cases and more on FLexlaw
Edward Sweat and Mark Crabtree’s Joint Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement . . . [ECF No. 138], and Plaintiffs’ Corrected Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 140]. In her Report, Judge Damian recommends that: 1) Plaintiffs’ Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF Nos. 135 and 140] be denied with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2) Individual Defendants Edward Sweat and Mark Crabtree’s Joint Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 138] be denied with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 137] be denied as moot. The parties have not filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, as here, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” (alteration added)).
The Court has reviewed the Motions, the related briefing and accompanying exhibits, Judge Damian’s Report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. There is no clear error on the face of the record except that the denial of the Motions should be without prejudice. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 840 F. App’x 419, 421 (11th Cir. 2020) (“The district court, did, however, err in one regard. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be entered without prejudice.” (alteration added; citation omitted)). Indeed, the Magistrate Judge recognizes the parties may seek relief in state court. (See Report 9). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judge Damian’s Report [ECF No. 144] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED as follows: Plaintiffs’ Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF Nos. 135 and 140] are DENIED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the Individual Case No. 15-CIV-24753-COOKE/Damian Defendants Edward Sweat and Mark Crabtree’s Joint Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 138] is DENIED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and For Entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 137] is DENIED as moot. DONE and ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 13th day of July 2022.
(eect, Id. ho ncpe for MARCIA G. COOKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Melissa Damian, U.S. Magistrate Judge counsel of record