AST & Science LLC v. Delclaux Partners SA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23335-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

AST & SCIENCE LLC, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. DELCLAUX PARTNERS SA, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. ______________________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 45] regarding Plaintiff AST & Science LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 21]. On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant. [ECF No. 1]. On December 29, 2020, Defendant Delclaux Partners SA filed its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims. [ECF No. 17]. On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion attacking the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction as to Defendant’s Counterclaims. [ECF No. 21]. On April 30, 2021, the Court referred this case to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 38]. On June 28, 2021, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff timely filed objections, [ECF No. 46], but Defendant did not respond.

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 objections are 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). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo- Reyes’s analysis and conclusion that Plaintiffs Motion should be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 45], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

2. Plaintiff AST & Science LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim, [ECF No. 21], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of August, 2021.

Df BL He UNITED STATES DISTRICV JUDGE