ACHERON PORTFOLIO TRUST

v.

MUKAMAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 52] regarding the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s Order of Limited Remand (the “Remand Order”) [ECF No. 44]. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiffs Acheron Portfolio Trust, Avernus Portfolio Trust, Lorenzo Tonti 2006 Trust, Styx Portfolio Trust, and Acheron Capital, Ltd. filed their Petition to Compel Arbitration (the “Petition”) against Defendant Barry Mukamal. [ECF No. 1].

On January 4, 2021, Defendant moved to dismiss the Petition. [ECF No. 13].

On January 14, 2021, the Court referred this case to Judge Strauss, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, nondispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 17]. On April 6, 2021, Judge Strauss issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the Petition. [ECF No. 32].

On May 24, 2021, the Court affirmed and adopted Judge Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the Petition. [ECF No. 37].

On June 17, 2021, Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision. [ECF No. 38]. On December 29, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit issued its Remand Order, which remanded this matter to this Court

“for the limited purpose of determining the parties’ citizenship to establish whether diversity jurisdiction existed.” [ECF No. 44]. See also Acheron Portfolio Trust v. Mukamal, No. 21-12111 (11th Cir. Dec. 29, 2021).

On December 30, 2021, the Court referred this matter to Judge Strauss for a report and recommendation on the Remand Order. [ECF No. 45].

On January 19, 2022, Judge Strauss issued his Report recommending that the Court find that the parties were completely diverse when this action commenced, that diversity jurisdiction exists, and that the record be returned, as supplemented, to the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings. [ECF No. 52]. No objections were timely filed. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Having conducted a review of the record for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Strauss’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the parties were completely diverse when this action commenced, that diversity jurisdiction exists, and that the record be returned, as supplemented, to the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 52], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

2. The Court find that the parties were completely diverse when this action commenced, and, therefore, that diversity jurisdiction exists.

3. The Clerk is directed to return the record, as supplemented, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of February, 2022.

Df Bld

UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE