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’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 114], regarding Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff Delclaux Partners SA’s (“Delclaux”) Motion for Summary Judgment (hereafter, “Delclaux’s Motion for Summary Judgment”), [ECF No. 70]1; and Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant AST & Science LLC’s (“AST”) Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment on the Amended Counterclaim of Defendant Delclaux Partners SA (hereafter, “AST’s Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment”), [ECF No. 74]. On April 30, 2021, the Court referred this case to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to

(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 December 12, 2022, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending that the Court deny Delclaux’s

1 Delclaux also filed an unredacted version of its Motion for Summary Judgment under seal on July 8, 2022. [ECF No. 92]. Motion for Summary Judgment and grant AST’s Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment. Delclaux filed timely objections to the Report.2 [ECF Nos. 126, 127]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(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,

(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.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo- Reyes’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Delclaux’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, that AST’s Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and that judgment be entered in favor of AST as to Delclaux’s Amended Counterclaim, [ECF No. 17].

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 114], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Delclaux’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF Nos. 72, 92], is DENIED. 3. AST’s Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 74], is GRANTED.

2 Delclaux also filed an Alternative Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Counterclaim on January 30, 2023, [ECF No. 129], as well as Motion for Leave to File Brief Reply in Support of its Amended Objections on February 3, 2023. [ECF No. 131]. The Court does not find good cause to grant either motion at this juncture. Accordingly, both motions will be denied by separate order. 4. Final Judgment as to the Amended Counterclaim will be entered under a separate order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of February, 2023.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE