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)

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