Moebius v. Moyal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 16-cv-23110-WPD MICHAEL MOEBIUS, Plaintiff, vs. KFIR MOYAL; KFIR MOYAL ART GALLERY, INC.; and CARZA ART, LLC; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 10, representing the unknown current and former members of CARZA ART, LLC, Defendants. _________________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Amended Omnibus Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Writs of Garnishment and Defendants’ Motion to Ratify, Adopt and Approve Settlement Agreement, entered by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra on September 2, 2021 (the “Report”) [DE 122]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Writs of Garnishment, Vacate Order Granting Leave To Inspect Safe Deposit Box And For Disgorgement Of Funds In Excess Of Settlement Amount [DE 104], Defendants’ Motion to Ratify, Adopt, and Approve Settlement Agreement [DE 117], the Report [DE 122], Defendants’ Objection [DE 126], Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Objection [DE 127], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and the Defendants’ objections. The objections fail to demonstrate any error in the analysis and conclusions of Judge Becerra’s thorough and well-reasoned Report, with which this Court agrees.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation [DE 122] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendants’ Objection [DE 126] are hereby OVERRULED; 3. Defendants’ Motion to Quash Writs of Garnishment, Vacate Order Granting Leave To Inspect Safe Deposit Box And For Disgorgement Of Funds In Excess Of Settlement Amount [DE 104] is DENIED; 4. Defendants’ Motion to Ratify, Adopt, and Approve Settlement Agreement [DE 117] is DENIED; 7. This case shall remain CLOSED. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 17th day of September, 2021.

f a ? ; 2 (F a “4 if { FO etrsnnnnc zd a3 v Py j ‘4 ta ase □□ VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of record