Wright et al v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. et al

Filing 70

ORDER adopting 68 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 58 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to Deny Class Certification filed by Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., 56 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifi cally to Deny Class Certification. The Report and Recommendation 68 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. Defendant Dyck O'Neal, Inc.'s Motion to Deny Class Certification 56 , construed as a motion to strike the c lass allegations in the Complaint, is GRANTED. Defendant Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra's Motion to Deny Class Certification 58 , construed as a motion to strike the class allegations in the Complaint, is GRANTED. The class allegations in the Complaint 1 are STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/18/2016. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MOLLY WRIGHT, TRISHA BREMER,
SHAWN FISHER, KIMBERLY FISHER,
ANGELA MCDOUGALL, THOMAS
PATTERSON, MICHAEL PIASECKI,
CHRIS A. WIGLESWORTH and
DOROTHY WILLIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly
situated
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-249-FtM-38MRM

DYCK-O’NEAL, INC. and LAW
OFFICES OF DANIEL C.
CONSUEGRA, P.L.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Mac R.
McCoy's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #68) filed on June 27, 2016. Judge McCoy
recommends granting Defendant Dyck O'Neal, Inc.'s Motion to Deny Class Certification
(Doc. #56) and Defendant Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra's Motion to Deny Class
Certification (Doc. #58). Pertinently, Judge McCoy has construed Defendants' motions
to be motions to strike the class allegations in the Complaint because no motion for class
certification has been filed and thus, there is no pending request to certify a class for the

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

Court to deny. (Doc. #68 at 2). Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired.

Thus, the Report and

Recommendation is ripe for review.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright,
681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982).

In the absence of specific objections, there is no

requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993
F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge
reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See CooperHouston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After independently examining the file and upon carefully considering Judge
McCoy's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. #68).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #68) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
and the findings incorporated herein.
(2) Defendant Dyck O'Neal, Inc.'s Motion to Deny Class Certification (Doc. #56),
construed as a motion to strike the class allegations in the Complaint, is
GRANTED.

2

(3) Defendant Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra's Motion to Deny Class
Certification (Doc. #58), construed as a motion to strike the class allegations in
the Complaint, is GRANTED.
(4) The class allegations in the Complaint (Doc. #1) are STRICKEN.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 18th day of July 2016.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3