Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Environmental House Wrap, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER adopting, as modified, 24 Report and Recommendation; denying without prejudice 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Biscayne Bay Homeowners Association, Inc.; denying without prejudice 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Environmental House Wrap, Inc. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/3/2018. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:17-cv-817-J-34PDB
vs.
ENVIRONMENTAL HOUSE WRAP, INC.,
THE RYLAND GROUP, INC., and
BISCAYNE BAY HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24;
Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge,
on May 14, 2018. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that Plaintiffs’ motions
for default judgment (Dkt. Nos. 20 and 22) be denied “without prejudice to renewal when
the action is ripe for final adjudication against all defendants.” Report at 6. On May 29,
2018, Plaintiff Auto-Owners Insurance Company filed a response to the Report. See
Auto-Owners’ Response to the Magistrate Judge’s May 14, 2018 Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25; Response).
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or
recommendations by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections
to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review
of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de

-1-

novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions
recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

The Court, however, will modify the

recommendation to incorporate the changes requested by Plaintiff in its Response.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24), as
modified, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Biscayne Bay
Homeowners Association, Inc. (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice to
renewal when there is no longer a risk of inconsistent judgments, even if that
occurs after the dispositive motion deadline.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Environmental
House Wrap, Inc. (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal when
there is no longer a risk of inconsistent judgments, even if that occurs after the
dispositive motion deadline.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 3rd day of July, 2018.

-2-

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Biscayne Bay Homeowners Association
c/o Interlaced Property Solutions, LLC
5991 Chester Avenue, #203
Jacksonville, FL 32217
Environmental House Wrap, Inc.
13218 Huguenot Lane
Jacksonville, FL 32225-1214

-3-