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 : 305-858-2900 Fax : 305-858-526 1
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?