United States Liability Insurance Company v. International Yacht Broker's Assoc. Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-22897
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:24-CV-22897-GAYLES/D’ANGELO

UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL YACHT BROKER’S ASSOCATION INC.,

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Omnibus Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ellen F. D’Angelo (the “Report”). [ECF No. 57]. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). [ECF No. 15]. On October 28, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Motion”). [ECF No. 23]. On August 5, 2025, Judge D’Angelo issued her Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted and Defendant’s Motion be denied. [ECF No. 57]. On August 19, 2025, Defendant timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 58]. On August 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s objection. [ECF No. 60]. 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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Report, the Motions, Defendant’s objection, and Plaintiffs response. The Court agrees with Judge D’Angelo’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiffs Motion should be granted and Defendant’s Motion should be denied. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 57], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 15], is GRANTED. (3) Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 23], is DENIED. (4) This case is CLOSED. (5) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, final judgment will be entered by separate order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of September, 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE