CATHEDRAL OF PRAISE WORSHIP CENTER, INC.
v.
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY
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, granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion.
Plaintiff Cathedral of Praise Worship Center, Inc. sued Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company. The defendant moved to compel appraisal, stay litigati…
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 Adoption cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Appraisal, to Stay Litigation, to Delineate and Itemize Appraisal Award, and to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Attorneys’ Fees [DE 9] and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle [DE 13], issued on November 13, 2020. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 13] 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 13] 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 13] 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 13] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Appraisal, to Stay Litigation, to Delineate and Itemize Appraisal Award, and to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim
for Attorneys’ Fees [DE 9] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 3. Defendant’s request for an appraisal is GRANTED. The parties are DIRECTED to proceed with the appraisal process set forth in the Appraisal Provision of the Insurance Policy. 4. Defendant’s request for an itemized and delineated appraisal is DENIED. 5. The above-styled action is hereby STAYED pending the completion of the appraisal. Upon completion of the appraisal, the parties should immediately file a notice with the Court advising that the stay should be lifted. The parties shall file joint status reports on March 1, 2021, and every sixty (60) days thereafter regarding the status of
the appraisal process. 6. Defendant’s motion to strike the attorney’s fee provision in the Complaint is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiff should be permitted to file an Amended Complaint seeking attorney’s fees under the appropriate Florida statute. 7. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case during the pendency of the appraisal.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 2nd day of December, 2020.
a ? ; % (7 a : “4 i} f J qememnaffl ve ea a3 v Py j ‘4 ta ase [...]
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Valle Counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)