Mainsail Development, LLC et al v. Rusco Investments, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation; granting 4 Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration; denying as moot 16 Defendants' Motion to Stay Any Obligation to Answer or Otherwise Respond. The case is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending the resolution of the arbitration proceedings. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/19/2011. (CR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MAINSAIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and
AUSTIN PARK DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO:

8:11-cv-45-T-33AEP

RUSCO INVESTMENTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants
Rusco

Investments,

Inc.,

Pinnacle

Mutual,

Inc.,

Lass

Accounting and Business Services, Inc., Ruth Liverpool and
Aldwyn Liverpool's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. # 4).
Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli has filed his report
recommending that the motion be granted (Doc. # 17).

All

parties were furnished copies of the Report and Recommendation
and were afforded the opportunity to file objections pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiffs filed an Objection to

the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 19), and Defendants
filed a Response to the Objection (Doc. # 20).
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.

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1);

Williams

v.

Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,
459 U.S. 1112 (1983).

A district judge "shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made."

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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).

The district judge reviews

legal

conclusions

de

novo,

even

in

the

absence

of

an

objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604
(11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428,
1432 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, all objections thereto and responses to
objections timely filed by the parties and upon this Court's
independent examination of the file, it is determined that the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted
and all objections overruled.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
(Doc.

#

17)

is

adopted
2

and

incorporated

by

reference

in

this

Order

of

the

Court.

All

objections thereto are overruled.
(2)

Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. # 4)
is GRANTED.

(3)

The case is
pending

the

STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED
resolution

of

the

arbitration

proceedings.
(4)

The parties shall file a joint status report within
90 days of the date of this Order to inform the
Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings.
Thereafter, the parties shall continue to file
joint status reports with the Court every 90 days
until the arbitration proceedings are completed.

(5)

Defendants' Motion to Stay Any Obligation to Answer
or Otherwise Respond (Doc. # 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 19th
day of July, 2011.

Copies:
All Counsel of Record

3