United States v. Real Property Located at 7505 and 7171 Forest Lane, Dallas, Texas 75230

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23278-GAYLES/GOODMAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALL RIGHT TO AND INTEREST IN PNC CORPORATE PLAZA HOLDINGS LLC HELD, CONTROLLED, OR ACQUIRED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY OPTIMA CBD INVESTMENTS LLC AND/OR CBD 500 LLC, INCLUDING ANY INTEREST HELD IN OR SECURED BY THE REAL PROPERTY AND APPURTENANCES LOCATED AT WEST JEFFERSON STREET, LOUISVILLE, KY 40202, et al., Defendants. ________________________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report and Recommendations (the “Report”), [ECF No. 164], regarding Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss the Verified Complaint (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 78]. On May 25, 2022, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Goodman for a ruling, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 132].

Following a hearing, Judge Goodman issued his Report on September 28, 2022, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion. Objections and responses were timely filed. [ECF Nos. 167, 168, 178, 179].

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 Goodman’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusions that abstention is not warranted here, the Complaint was timely filed, the Government did not properly name the in rem defendant, and the Government should be granted leave to amend its Complaint.

Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Goodman’s Report and Recommendations, [ECF No. 164], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

2. Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss the Verified Complaint, [ECF No. 78], 1s GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of December, 2022.

Df BL 4 UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE