ARCPE 1, LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 97

ORDER Affirming and Adopting 96 Report and Recommendation on 63 Motion for Summary Judgment. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (ssd) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-cv-20448-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES
ARCPE 1, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s
Report of Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 96], entered on August 10, 2017. Defendant Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, filed a Notice of Removal of the state court complaint on February 8, 2016
[ECF No. 1], and subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 9, 2017 [ECF
No. 63]. The matter was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for
a Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 84]. Judge
Otazo-Reyes held a hearing on this matter on May 18, 2017. Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report
recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 96]. To
date, no objections have been filed.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to
which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific
findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir.
2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, the district court need only
review the report and recommendation for “clear error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781,

784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. The
Court has undertaken this review and has found no clear error in the analysis and
recommendations stated in the Report. The Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes that Plaintiff
did not have the right to possess the Note either by virtue of an assignment or a bona fide
purchaser status, nor did it demand the Note’s return. Accordingly, the Court agrees with Judge
Otazo-Reyes’s conclusion that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as
Plaintiff’s conversion claim is not sustainable as a matter of law. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 96] is AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED;

(2)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 63] is GRANTED;

(3)

this case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE