Valley National Bank v. DUTTA HORSE TRANSPORTATION, INC.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:24-cv-81492-LEIBOWITZ/REINHART

VALLEY NATIONAL BANK,

Plaintiff, v.

DUTTA HORSE TRANSPORTATION, INC., ,

Defendants. __________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation on Motion for Default Judgment (the “R&R”) [ECF No. 79], filed on September 11, 2025, recommending that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 61] be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules. [ECF No. 59]. No objections to the R&R were filed during the 14-day objection period. After careful review of the filings, applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Reinhart’s R&R in its entirety. “In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up). The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Reinhart’s R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Reinhart’s R&R is thorough, cogent, and

compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s R&R [ECF No. 79] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment [ECF No. 61] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 3. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court CERTIFIES partial judgment in favor of Plaintiff Valley National Bank d/b/a Agile Premium Finance and against Defendants Venture Plus Promotions, LLC and Travel Plus Promotions, LLC on Count I of the Complaint jointly and severally. The Court also CERTIFIES partial judgment in favor of Plaintiff Valley National Bank d/b/a Agile Premium Finance and against Defendant Wayne C Jenkins on Count II of the Complaint. Partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) will be entered by separate Order.

4. The Court awards Plaintiff $221,417.82 plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum simple interest running from October 27, 2023, for Counts I and II. The Court also awards Plaintiff $20,824 in attorneys’ fees and $1,013.80 in costs. 5. The remaining counts (Counts III, IV, V, VI, and VII) of the Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on September 26, 2025. @ onthe DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record