The Landing, L.L.C. et al v. MG Affordable Master, LLC et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, 64 Report & Recommendation is ADOPTED as set out. Dfts' request for oral argument is DENIED. The objections are OVERRULED. Plfs' 43 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, & Dfts' 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 9/25/24. (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE LANDING, L.L.C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MG AFFORDABLE MASTER, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-377-TFM-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 12, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation which
recommends Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 43) be granted and
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 32) be denied. See Doc. 64. Defendants
timely filed objections (Doc. 65), Plaintiffs timely filed their response to the objections (Doc. 66),
and Defendants timely replied (Doc. 69). The Report and Recommendation (R&R) is now ripe
for review.
The Court reviewed the amended complaint (Doc. 21), answer (Doc. 31), the underlying
cross motions for judgment on the pleadings (Docs. 32, 43), responses (Docs. 42, 50), replies
(Docs. 50, 57), the transcript of the oral arguments held on March 14, 2024 (Doc 59), notice of
supplemental authority (Doc. 60), the response to the supplemental authority (Doc. 63), the R&R
(Doc. 64), the objections (Doc. 65), response to objections (Doc. 66), reply to objections (Doc.
69), and applicable caselaw. Though Defendants request oral argument on their objections, the
Court finds that oral arguments are unnecessary for the resolution of the issues as the matters have
been extensively briefed and oral arguments already occurred before the Magistrate Judge which
the undersigned reviewed. Therefore, the request for oral arguments is DENIED. The Court
Page 1 of 2

applies a de novo review to the entire matter given that the objections cover pretty much the entire
R&R and seek to start anew. In fact, the objections even change some of the positions originally
asserted by the Defendants. Regardless, the Court has reviewed this case with new eyes.
The Court finds that the objections are OVERRULED for the reasons articulated in the
response to objections. The Court agrees with the overall analysis of the Magistrate Judge, finds
that it is well-reasoned, and notes that the undersigned finds that the contract terms are clear.
Therefore, after due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to
the issues raised (which is essentially everything), and a de novo determination of those portions
of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
(Doc. 64) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 43) is GRANTED and the Defendants’ motion for judgment on
the pleadings (Doc. 32) is DENIED.
A separate judgment will issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2024.
/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2