Pimentel v. Strength20, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

EMMANUEL PIMENTEL, RANCEL MORENO, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 2:23-cv-00544-JLB-KCD

STRENGTH20, LLC, GLOBAL STRATEGIES CONSULTANT GROUP, CORP., ROMMEL A. ARIZA and FLORIDA STRUCTURAL GROUP, INC.,

Defendants. / ORDER The Magistrate Judge has entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 79), recommending that a clerk’s default judgment be entered against Defendant Global Strategies Consultant Group, Corp. (“Global”) because a corporation cannot proceed pro se. No party has objected, and the time to do so has expired. A district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.

- Remainder of page left intentionally blank - Here, after an independent review of the entire record and noting that no objection has been filed, the Court finds that the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 79) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. (2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter default against Defendant Global Strategies Consultant Group, Corp. (3) Pursuant to Local Rule 1.10, Plaintiffs shall, within 35 days of entry of

the Clerk’s default, apply for default judgment as to Global, or file a paper identifying each unresolved issue necessary to entry of the default judgment against it. While the Court directs Plaintiffs to file the motion for default judgment within 35 days, the Court will not rule on such motion until the conclusion of the remaining claims against the appearing Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“[W]hen multiple

parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.”) (emphasis added); see Nautilus Ins. Co. v. A.J. Cardinal Grp. LLC, No. 8:18-CV- 2778-T-60CPT, 2019 WL 5072094, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2019) (“The ‘preferred practice’ in multi-defendant actions where only some defendants are in default is to withhold granting default judgment against those defendants until there is adjudication on the merits as to the non-defaulted defendants.”). ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on April 17, 2025.

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE