Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Plymouth Plaza, LLC.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-62333-CV-WILLIAMS

MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLYMOUTH PLAZA, LLC,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin- Birch’s Report and Recommendation (DE 69) (“Report”) on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 42) (“Motion”). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion (DE 42). Specifically, the Report finds whether Plaintiff’s claims are analyzed under Florida or New York law, Plaintiff cannot recoup its settlement payment or defense costs incurred in the ultimate resolution of the Florida state court proceeding between Defendant and Mitchel Klock’s estate. (DE 69 at 9–22.) The Report recommends that the Court not dismiss Count I but dismiss Counts II, III, IV, and V of Plaintiff’s Corrected Second Amended Complaint (DE 38). (DE 69 at 22.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report (DE 75), to which Defendant filed a Response (DE 79).1 Defendant filed Objections to the Report

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s objections merely rehash arguments, in some instances verbatim, that were presented to Judge Augustin-Birch. As such, the objection simply disagrees with the Report’s conclusion. However, it is well settled that an objecting party may not “submit [] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when (DE 76), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (DE 80). The Court conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Plaintiff and Defendant objected and a review of the remainder of the Report for clear error.

Having carefully reviewed the Report, the Objections, the record, and applicable law, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report (DE 69) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DE 42) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. Count II, Count Ill, Count IV, and Count V of Plaintiffs Corrected Second Amended Complaint (DE 38) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 21st day of November, 2023.

□□ ane, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

they file objections to a [Report].” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). Page 2 of 2