Onemata Corporation v. Rahman

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedMarch 29, 2024
Docket0:20-cv-62002
StatusUnknown

This text of Onemata Corporation v. Rahman (Onemata Corporation v. Rahman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Onemata Corporation v. Rahman, (S.D. Fla. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 0:20-cv-62002-WPD ONEMATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, v.

ASHFAQ RAHMAN and SABIRA AREFIN,

Defendants. vs.

WILLIAM SMITH and ENSCICON ACQUISITIONS II, LLC,

Third-Party Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Onemata Corporation’s Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment as to Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. “(Wells Fargo”) [DE 602], Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment as to Garnishee JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (“Chase”) [DE 603], and the March 13, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle [DE 663] (the “Report”). As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 663] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 663] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 663] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED. 2. Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Onemata Corporation’s Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment as to Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. [DE 602] is GRANTED. The Court will separately enter the proposed final judgment. 3. Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Onemata Corporation’s Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment as to Garnishee JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. [DE 603] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. This case shall remain CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2024. □□ □□ % f —_ va a4 v ay d if feos “fh C4, MAGYYWA | KV VME Coe VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Daniel Loconte v. Richard Dugger, Robert A. Butterworth
847 F.2d 745 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Resolution Trust Corporation v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.
996 F.2d 1144 (Eleventh Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Onemata Corporation v. Rahman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/onemata-corporation-v-rahman-flsd-2024.