Talk Fusion, Inc. v. Ulrich et al

Filing 86

ORDER adopting 84 Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 18 Motion to Compel Arbitration; denying as moot 45 Motion to Compel Arbitration; granting 60 Motion to Compel Arbitration. The case is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending t he resolution of the arbitration proceedings. 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. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/14/2011. (CR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TALK FUSION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO:

8:11-cv-1134-T-33AEP

J.J. ULRICH, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants'
Motions to Compel Arbitration (Docs. # 18, 45 and 60).
Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli has filed his report
(Doc. # 84) recommending that Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration (Doc. # 18) be denied as moot, Defendants' Motion
to

Compel

Arbitration

(Doc.

#

45)

be

denied

as

moot,

Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. # 60) be
granted, and the case be administratively closed and stayed
pending arbitration. 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). As of this
date,

there

are

no

objections

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such
objections has elapsed.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the

findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject

or

modify

recommendation.

the
28

magistrate

U.S.C.

§

judge’s

636(b)(1);

report

and

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).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo
review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge regarding
the motions.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
2

(1)

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
(Doc.

#

84)

is

adopted

and

incorporated

by

reference in this Order of the Court.
(2)

Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. #
18) is DENIED AS MOOT.

(3)

Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. #
45) is DENIED AS MOOT.

(4)

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

(5)

The case is
pending

the

STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED
resolution

of

the

arbitration

proceedings.
(6)

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.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 14th
day of September, 2011.

3

Copies:
All Counsel of Record

4