Caulfield & Wheeler, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC

Filing 13

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 12],denying 6 Motion to Dismiss; denying 6 Motion to Strike 6 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss the State Court Complaint contained within the Notice of R emoval 1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint),, MOTION to Strike Demand for Attorneys' Fees, 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 6 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss the State Court Complaint contained within th e Notice of Removal 1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint),, MOTION to Strike Demand for Attorneys' Fees</ ; Adopting 12 Report and Recommendations on 6 Motion to Dismiss,, Motion to Strike, filed by Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC, 12 Report and Recommendations,. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 2/6/2024. See attached document for full details. (mee)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 23-81407-CIV-CANNON/McCabe CAULFIELD & WHEELER, INC., v. Plaintiff, MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY, LLC, Defendant. ________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 12] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge McCabe’s Amended Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Attorney’s Fees (the “Report”) [ECF No. 12]. On October 27, 2023, Defendant Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC, moved to Dismiss the State Court Complaint and Strike Plaintiff’s Demand for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 6]. On November 30, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF No. 12 p. 8]. Objections to the Report were due on January 18, 2023 [ECF No. 12 p. 8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 12 p. 8]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, CASE NO. 23-81407-CIV-CANNON/McCabe or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error of law or fact on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Following review, the Court finds no error in the well-reasoned Report. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 12 pp. 3–7], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Amended Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 12] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss/Strike [ECF No. 6] is DENIED. 3. On or before February 20, 2024, Defendant shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1]. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 6th day of February 2024. _________________________________ AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record 2

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?