E.N. Yosef Trade Ltd. v. Forceget Logistics, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 25-24180-CIV-SMITH/HUNT

E.N. YOSEF TRADE LTD.,

Plaintiff, vs.

FORCEGET LOGISTICS, LLC,

Defendants. /

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 66], in which he recommends granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 10]. Plaintiff filed objections [DE 67] and Defendants responded [DE 68]. 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). The Court, having considered Judge Hunt’s Report, Defendant’s objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Hunt’s well-reasoned analysis and his recommendation that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted. However, the Court modifies Judge Hunt’s Report to clarify how Yosef I applies to the instant action. In Yosef I, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because, after three attempts, Plaintiff failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction over its claims. The Court also denied Plaintiff an additional opportunity to amend and dismissed the action. Notably, ample authority supports dismissal with prejudice where plaintiffs fail to cure deficiencies in their complaints after multiple opportunities to amend. See e.g. Marshall v. Aryan Unlimited Staffing Sol./Faneuil Inc./MacAndrews Holding, 599 F. App’x 896, 899 (11th Cir. 2015) (finding that district court’s dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs complaint action was not an abuse of discretion where plaintiff was given numerous opportunities to file an amended complaint and plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies); see also Klusmeier v. Bell Constructors, Inc., 469 F. App’x 718, 722 (11th Cir. 2012) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied Plaintiffs request for leave to file a third amended complaint). In Yosef 7, however, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice as a courtesy to allow Plaintiff to pursue claims in state court, which is an option that remains available. Given Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the Court’s orders in Yosef J, however, Plaintiff has forfeited its opportunity to be heard in this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Refiled Complaint [DE 10] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in part. 2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 10] is GRANTED. 3) All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 4) This case is closed. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 20th day of July, 2026. ce: All Counsel of Record Ke J 4-4 RODNEY SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE