Blatt v. Goldner

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-24819
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 23-CV-24819-GAYLES/D’ANGELO

ELI M. BLATT, individually and derivatively on behalf of Goldner Blatt Investments, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARC J. GOLDNER, RACHEL KORSEN, SIMON DIVILOV, and THE DHARMA INITIATIVE, LLC, a Delaware company,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ellen F. D’Angelo (the “Report”). [ECF No. 204]. On August 20, 2025, Judge D’Angelo recommended that (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 72] be granted and, as a result, all claims against Third-Party Defendants in the Third-Party Complaint be dismissed without prejudice; (2) Third-Party Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 98, 117, 118, 119, 126, 143, 147, 182] be denied without prejudice as moot; (3) Defendants’ Counterclaims [ECF No. 81] be stricken; (4) Plaintiff’s Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 99, 159] be denied without prejudice as moot; (5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portion of Counterclaim [ECF No. 92] be denied without prejudice as moot; and (6) Defendant Goldner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 93] be denied without prejudice. Accordingly, Judge D’Angelo also recommended the case be closed. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation 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 objection is 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). As no objections have been filed prior to the August 30, 2025 deadline, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge D’Angelo’s findings and conclusions. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 204], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 72] is GRANTED, Counts One and Two of the Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice, and Counts Three, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Eleven, and Twelve are DISMISSED

without prejudice for lack of standing. Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim, and Count Ten is STRICKEN; (3) All claims against Third-Party Defendants in the Third-Party Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice; (4) Third-Party Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 98, 117, 118, 119, 126, 143, 147, 182] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot; (5) Defendants’ Counterclaims [ECF No. 81] are STRICKEN; (6) Plaintiff’s Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 99, 159] are DENIED without prejudice as moot; (7) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portion of Counterclaim [ECF No. 92] is DENIED without prejudice as moot; (8) Defendant Goldner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 93] is DENIED without prejudice; (9) The case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of September, 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE