Brian Evans v. City National Bank

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 25-CV-62656-WPD BRIAN EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY NATIONAL BANK,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant City National Bank (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (“Motion”) [DE 23]; and the June 22, 2026 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 38]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 20], Plaintiff Brian Evans (“Plaintiff”)’s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 39], Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 40], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in the Report that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), “[a] court must dismiss an action against a defendant over which it has no personal

jurisdiction.” Verizon Trademark Servs., LLC v. Producers, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1323–24 (M.D. Fla. 2011). Plaintiff’s Objection is overruled. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the operative pleading, fall far short of establishing a prima facie case of general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the alleged conversion occurred in Nevada, not

Florida, and correctly rejected Plaintiffs’ claim that Plaintiff living in Florida and Plaintiff sending letters from Florida to the Defendant (to which Plaintiff did not receive a response) constitute a continuing tort of conversion in Florida for purposes of personal jurisdiction, as there are no factual allegations that Defendant sent any tortious communications to Plaintiff in Florida. Finally, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that jurisdictional discovery is not appropriate here, where Plaintiff failed to plead facts to state a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fleischman v. Forest Trail Acad., LLC, No. 24-CV-81457-RLR, 2025 WL 1330498, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2025) (‘Plaintiff is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery to facially allege personal jurisdiction.”).

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 38] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [DE 23] is GRANTED IN PART; 3. The above-styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and DENY all pending motions as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 14th day of July, 2026. fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of record and pro se parties Magistrate Judge Strauss