Silberman v. Premier Beauty and Health LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-21984-DPG

AARON SILBERMAN and AMJ MISIL AB LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PREMIER BEAUTY AND HEALTH LLC, JORGE HANE, and FLORENCIA HANE,

Defendants. ________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgement (the “Report”). [ECF No. 364]. On February 15, 2023, Defendants Premier Beauty and Health LLC, Jorge Hane, and Florencia Hane filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VIII of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. [ECF No. 264]. On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff AMJ Misil AB LLC (“AMJ”) filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 268]. On April 13, 2023, AMJ was granted leave to file an amended motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 315], which it filed on April 19, 2023, [ECF No. 316]. On April 10, 2023, the case was referred to Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non- dispositive matters, and for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 309]. Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, AMJ’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, and AMJ’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 364]. On September 14, 2023, AMJ filed its Corrected Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.1 [ECF No. 366]. Defendants did not timely object to the Report, so their objections will not be considered. [ECF No. 367].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made 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). This Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Otazo- Reyes’ well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the matters must be denied.

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) AMJ Misil AB LLC’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 365], and Corrected Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 366], are OVERRULED;

1 AMJ initially filed its Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 365]. This Court deems AMJ’s original Objections, [ECF No. 365], to be subsumed in its Corrected Objections, [ECF No. 366]. (2) Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 364], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; (3) Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts J, II, III, IV, V, and VII of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, [ECF No. 264], is DENIED; (4) AMSJ Misil AB LLC’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 268], is DENIED; (5) AMSJ Misil AB LLC’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 316], is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of September, 2023.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE