Cedarwood Capital LLC v. USA Capital Fund LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: December 16, 2023
• Docket: 0:20-cv-62504
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-62504-ALTMAN

CEDARWOOD CAPITAL LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

USA CAPITAL FUND LLC,

Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant, Cedarwood Capital LLC, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Counterclaim (the “Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 75]. On December 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss issued a report and recommendation, in which he recommended that we deny the Motion to Dismiss. See Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) [ECF No. 85] at 1. Magistrate Judge Strauss also issued the following warning: The parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Roy K. Altman, United States District Judge. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

Id. at 6. More than fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected. See generally Docket. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “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 1s silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress’s intent was to require de nove review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, when no 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.”’). In any event, the “[flailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 017 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)). Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law—and finding no clear error on the face of the R&R—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 85] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 2. The Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 75] is DENIED. 3. By January 22, 2024, the Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant shall file its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Defendant / Counter-Plaintiffs Counterclaim [ECF No. 36}. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of aC 16, 2023.

ROY K. ALTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record