First National Bank of Pasco v. U.S. Alliance Group, Inc., et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PASCO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-1934-TPB-AAS

U.S. ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda A. Sansone, entered on March 3, 2026. (Doc. 55). Judge Sansone recommends that “Defendants U.S. Alliance Group, Inc. and Payment Solutions International, LLC’s Motion to Tax Costs and for Attorney’s Fees” (Doc. 51) be granted. Specifically, Judge Sansone concludes that Defendants are entitled to fees under the contractual provisions of the Payment Processing Agreements. Plaintiff filed an objection to the report and recommendation on March 17, 2026. (Doc. 57). Defendants filed a response to the objection on March 31, 2026. (Doc. 58). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s objection thereto and Defendants’ response to the objection, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the report and

recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Sansone’s detailed and well- reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions. The report and recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the report and recommendation.1 As such, Defendants’ motion is granted.

1 Plaintiff’s objection, among other things, argues (1) for the application of an exception to the general rule that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the defendant is the prevailing party, and (2) that only Defendant U.S. Alliance Group was a party to the POS Network Sponsorship Agreement (one of the Payment Processing Agreements at issue), not Defendant Payment Solutions International. These arguments were not presented in Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for entitlement to fees, and the Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider them. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (“The district court retained the final adjudicative authority and properly exercised its discretion in deciding whether to consider any new arguments raised by [the plaintiff] in his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.”). The Court further notes that while Plaintiff now claims that Defendant Payment Solutions International was not a party to the POS Network Sponsorship Agreement, its own second amended complaint alleges the opposite – that both Defendants entered into various agreements with Plaintiff, including the POS Network Sponsorship Agreement. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 55) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. 2. “Defendants U.S. Alliance Group, Inc. and Payment Solutions International, LLC’s Motion to Tax Costs and for Attorney’s Fees” (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. 3. On or before June 8, 2026, Defendants must file a supplemental motion on the amount of fees requested, pursuant to Local Rule 7.01(c). DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of April, 2026.

TOMBARBER =————(ai‘“‘C:;C;~*~™ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 8 of 3