Paul Daniels v. Martin Crotty, et al.

S.D. Florida

Paul Daniels v. Martin Crotty, et al.

DecidedDecember 18, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-20137

StatusUnknown

This text of Paul Daniels v. Martin Crotty, et al. (Paul Daniels v. Martin Crotty, et al.) 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

Paul Daniels v. Martin Crotty, et al., (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 25-CV-20137-GAYLES/TORRES

PAUL DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN CROTTY, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres (the “Report”). [ECF No. 194]. On August 15, 2025, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 122]. On November 17, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending the Motion be granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. [ECF No. 194]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF Nos. 205, 206, 216]. Defendants then filed a response to the objections. [ECF Nos. 210, 211]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation 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). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 194], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 122] is GRANTED. This case is CLOSED. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of December, 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES D CT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 25-CV-20137-GAYLES/TORRES

PAUL DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN CROTTY, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres (the “Report”). [ECF No. 194]. On August 15, 2025, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 122]. On November 17, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending the Motion be granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. [ECF No. 194]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF Nos. 205, 206, 216]. Defendants then filed a response to the objections. [ECF Nos. 210, 211]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation 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). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 194], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 122] is GRANTED. This case is CLOSED. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of December, 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES D CT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paul Daniels v. Martin Crotty, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-daniels-v-martin-crotty-et-al-flsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack