Corporate Insurance Advisors, LLC v. Addeo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 0:21-cv-61769-GAYLES/STRAUSS CORPORATE INSURANCE ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA A. ADDEO, LORRAINE R. CARRIO, DONNA J. MARCHESE, THE LIBERTY COMPANY INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., and THE LIBERTY COMPANY INSURANCE BROKERS, LLC, Defendants. _______________________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 55] regarding Plaintiff Corporate Insurance Advisors, LLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 8]. On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff brought this action against Barbara A. Addeo, Lorraine R. Carrio, and Donna J. Marchese (collectively, the “Defendants”). [ECF No. 1]. On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief against the Defendants. [ECF No. 8]. That same day, Plaintiff also requested that an evidentiary hearing be held on the Motion. [ECF No. 9].

On September 29, 2021, the Court referred this case to Judge Strauss, 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. 15]. On October 25, 2021, Judge Strauss held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion. [ECF No. 51]. Thereafter, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. [ECF Nos. 38 & 39]. On December 8, 2021, Judge Strauss issued his Report recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion. Defendants timely filed objections, [ECF No. 65], to which Plaintiff responded, [ECF No. 72].

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 Strauss’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 55], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

2. Plaintiff Corporate Insurance Advisors, LLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [ECF No. 8], is GRANTED.

3. Defendants shall inventory and return all information belonging to Plaintiff that is in their possession, custody, or control.

4. Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and all others in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the court’s order are enjoined and restrained for a period of twelve months from directly or indirectly soliciting, selling, servicing, managing, providing, or accepting any request to provide, or inducing the termination, cancellation or non-renewal of Plaintiffs Business from or by any person, corporation, firm or other entity, whose account constituted a Client Account of Plaintiff's.

5. The parties are advised that the restrictions in the above paragraph should not apply to those who have already transferred their business from Plaintiff as of the date of Judge Strauss’ Report.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of January, 2022.

Df Bld UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE