Stelor Productions, v. Silvers

Filing 54

RESPONSE TO SILVERS' REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT OR HEARING ON SILVERS' OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Stelor Productions (kw, Deputy Clerk)

Case 9:05-cv-80393-DTKH

Document 54

Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO . 05-80393 CIV HURLEY/HOPK N S
1-+ 1 1! K F' K 1 11 11 * f 1 -1 /l1 Tn T T /' T i1 1 1 V .l I I \ ,1 ; l

Delaware limited liability company, f/k/a STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC . , Plaintiff,
vs . STEVEN A . SILVERS, a Flo ri da resident ,

\J 14

,,

NIGHT BOX FILE D

Ui2O3
CLARENCE MADDOX CLERK, USDC / SDFL/FTL

Defendant .

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SILVERS' REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT OR HEARING ON SILVERS' OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIO N Plaintiff STELOR PRODUCTIONS, L .L .C . ("Stelor"), by and through undersigned counsel , hereby responds as follows to Defendant's Request for Oral Argument or Hearing on Silvers' Objection to Report and Recommendation : Plaintiff respectfully opposes Defendant's request for oral argument or hearing . As set fo rt h in Plaintiff' s Opposition to the Objections , although a district court judge must make a de novo determination of the objected-to po rt ions of a Magistrate ' s Report , "the statute calls for a de novo determination , not a de novo hearing ." U. S. v. Raddatz, 447 U .S . 667, 100 S . Ct. 2406, 2411 (1980 ) . "Normally, the judge , on application , will consider the record which has been developed before the magistrate and make his own determination on the basis of that record , without being bound to adopt the findings and conclusions of the magistrate ." Id . at

BURLINGTON · WEIL · SCHWIEP · KAPLANC&1'BLONSKY, P .A . OFFICE IN THE GROVE PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305 .858 .2900 F : 305 .858 .526 1
EMAIL : INFO@BWSKB . COM WWW .BWSKB .COM

Case 9:05-cv-80393-DTKH

Document 54

Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2005

Page 2 of 3

CASE NO . 05-80393 CIV HURLEY/HOPKIN S

675, 100 S . Ct . at 2412 . The district court is in no way required "to conduct a second hearing ." Id. at 676 ; 100 S . Ct . at 2412 . ' The Eleventh Circuit has consistently followed this directive . See, e.g., Drew v. Dept. Of Corr., 297 F .3d 1278, 1290 n .4 (11th Cir . 2002) ("In light of [party's] failure to present the evidence to the magistrate judge, it would not have been abuse of discretion for the district court to decline to consider the evidence at all .") ; Wofford v . Wainwright, 748 F .2d 1505 (11 " Cir. 1984) (upholding district court's adopting of Magistrate's findings without new hearing) . In fact, the Court has confirmed that a new hearing is required only before the district court rejects a magistrate judge's credibility determinations . U.S. v. Cofield, 272 F . 3d 1303,

1306 (11t' Cir. 2001) . Accordingly, unless the Magistrate's Judge's credibility determinations are to be rejected, and Stelor respectfully asserts there is no basis whatsoever for such a rejection, no hearing is necessary. Respectfully submitted , BURLINGTON, WEIL, SCHWIEP, KAPLAN & BLONSKY, P .A . Attorneys for Plaintiff Office in the Grove, Penthouse A 2699 South Bayshore Drive

' As the Raddatz Court emphasized, imposing such a requirement "would largely frustrate the plain objective of Congress to alleviate the increasing congestion of litigation in the district courts. We cannot `impute to Congress a purpose to paralyze with one hand what it sought to promote with the other ."' Id. 2
BURLINGTON · WEIL · SCHWIEP · KAPLAN &) BLONSKY, P .A . OFFICE IN THE. GROVE PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T : 305 .858 .2900 F : 305 .858 .526 1
EMAIL : INFO@BWSKB . COM WWW . BWSKB .COM

Case 9:05-cv-80393-DTKH

Document 54

Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2005

Page 3 of 3

CASE NO . 05-80393 CIV HURLEY/HOPKIN S

Miami, Florida 33133 Tel : [phone] Fax : [phone]

By : Kevin C . Kaplin, Esq . Florida Bar No . 933848 David J . Zack, Esq . Florida Bar No . 641685 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a true copy of the foregoing is being served by United States mail this I51 day of July, 2005, upon Gail A . McQuilkin, Esq. and Kenneth Hartmann, Esq ., Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., counsel for Defendant, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor, Miami, Florida 33134 ; and Adam T . Rabin, Esq ., Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P .A ., Trump Plaza, 525 S . Flagler Drive, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 .

Kevin C . Kaplan David J . Zac k

3
BURLINGTON · WEIL · SCHWIEP · KAPLAN C&) BLONSKY, P .A . OFFICE IN THE GROVE PENTHOUSE. 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE T : 305 .858 .2900 F : 305 .858.526 1
EMAIL :INFO@BWSKB .COM WWW .BWSKB .COM

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133