UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:17-cv-23360-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

BRAMAN MOTORS, INC., for itself and in the name of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of the State of Florida, for its use and benefit, and doing business as Braman BMW,

PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., for itself and in the name of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of the State of Florida, for its use and benefit, and doing business as Braman Motorcars,

THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES of the State of Florida, for the use and benefit of Braman Motors, Inc. and Palm Beach Imports, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant. ______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 401], regarding Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “BMW NA”) Motion to Dismiss the Remaining Claims of the Fourth Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 391]. On August 5, 2021, this matter was referred to Magistrate 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. 289]. On April 28, 2023, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her report recommending that Defendant’s Motion be denied. [ECF No. 401]. Defendant filed timely objections to the Report. [ECF No. 403]. For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms

and adopts the Report. 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 objection is 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 objection is 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, including the Motion, the Report, and

Defendant’s objections, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant’s Motion should be DENIED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 401], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. (2) Defendant BMW NA’s Motion, [ECF No. 391], is DENIED. (3) This matter is set for a bench trial during the Court’s two-week trial period beginning July 3, 2023. The Telephonic Calendar Call before Judge Darrin P. Gayles shall take place at 9:30 A.M. on June 28, 2023. Counsel shall enter their appearances telephonically using the following dial-in information: Dial-in Number 888-273-3658; Access Code 7032614; Security Code 5170. Please dial in at least ten minutes before the Telephonic Calendar Call begins and wait until your case is called. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of May, 2023.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRI DGE