Dilts et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 80

ORDER denying without prejudice 35 Motion to Change Venue; adopting 52 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 2/17/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ADAM M. DILTS and RACHEL M.
DILTS,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 5:16-cv-453-Oc-37PRL

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following matters:
(1)

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 35), filed October 7, 2016;

(2)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Notice of Filing Supplemental Declaration in
Support of Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 40), filed
October 21, 2016;

(3)

Plaintiff’s Corrected/Amended Response in Opposition to Defendant’s
Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 47), filed November 9, 2016;

(4)

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52), filed December 20, 2016;

(5)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 55), filed January 3, 2017; and

(6)

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Objection to Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 74), filed February 7, 2017.

BACKGROUND
On December 20, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Philip R. Lammens (“Judge Lammens”)
entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) advising the Court to deny Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 35 (“Motion”)). (See Doc. 52). Defendant filed objections to
the Report (Doc. 55 (“Objections”)), Plaintiff responded (Doc. 74), and the matter is ripe
for adjudication.
STANDARDS
Federal district court judges may designate magistrate judges to hear matters
pending in a civil action for the purpose of submitting “proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition” of such matters (“R&Rs”). See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(1). District court judges must review de novo “those portions” of Reports to
which specific objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Upon review, district court
judges may choose to further develop the evidentiary record, “return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions,” or “accept, reject, or modify” such Reports. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);

see

also Stephens

v.

Tolbert,

471 F.3d 1173,

1176

(11th Cir. 2006).
DISCUSSION
According to Defendant, the Court should reject the Report and grant its Motion
because the Report: (1) “fails to take into account that no material witness currently reside
in Florida;” (2) “does not properly consider that Plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded less
deference where Plaintiffs themselves do not reside within the district;” (3) “fails to
consider that all of the convenience factors in fact favor Oregon or are otherwise neutral;”

2

and (4) “glosses over the inextricable links between this action and the Oregon
foreclosure action, making the District of Oregon more convenient for the parties.”
(Doc. 55, p. 2.)
Upon de novo review of the record, the Court finds that Defendant’s objections are
due to be overruled. In his thorough and well-reasoned Report, Judge Lammens carefully
and properly addressed every argument raised in the Motion and every factor pertinent
to a venue analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (See Doc. 52.) Although Defendant’s
assertions concerning Plaintiff’s purported refusal to be deposed in this District were
troublesome, such assertions were not before Judge Lammens when he issued the
Report, and they have since been resolved by Plaintiffs’ assent to being deposed in this
District. (See Doc. 78.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the Report is due to be adopted
and the Motion is due to be denied.
CONCLUSIONS
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
(1)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 55) are OVERRULED.

(2)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED.

(3)

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 35) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on February 17, 2017.

3

Copies:
Counsel of Record

4