Yel Co. Insurance v. Truist Bank

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:25-cv-22365-DPG

YEL CO. INSURANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRUIST BANK,

Defendant. ________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Amended Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Detra Shaw-Wilder (the “Report”), [ECF No. 43], on Defendant Truist Bank’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (“Motion”), [ECF No. 21]. On October 31, 2025, Plaintiff Yel Co. Insurance (“Plaintiff”) filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 33]. On November 7, 2025, Defendant filed its Reply. [ECF No. 35]. On February 19, 2026, Judge Shaw-Wilder issued her Report recommending that Defendant’s Motion be denied, [ECF No. 43]. Neither party objected to the Report. 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). Because neither party has objected to any portion of the Report, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Shaw- Wilder’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 21], should be denied. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Amended Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 43], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendant Truist Bank’s (“Defendant”) Motion, [ECF No. 21], is DENIED.! DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of March 2026.

|. £ DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRI€T JUDGE

' Tn Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion, it sought leave to amend if the Court were to grant Defendant’s Motion. [ECF No. 33]. The Court denies Plaintiffs request for leave to amend because it is moot and “it is improper to embed a motion within a response to a motion.” Roberto v. Addison Place Apartments Prop. Owner LLC, No. 0:23-CV-61579, 2024 WL 5215239, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2024) (internal citation omitted).