UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-22814-CV-WILLIAMS

LUIS BUSTELO FERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREAT HAVANA INC., et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report and Recommendation (DE 35) (“Report”) on (1) Defendant Grand Havana Master LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 13); (2) Defendant Grand Havana Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 23); and (3) Defendants Tanya Bredemeier and Robert Rico’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 25) (collectively the “Motions to Dismiss”). In the Report, Judge Reid recommends that the Motions to Dismiss be denied. (DE 35 at 1.) Defendants Grand Havana Master, LLC, Grand Havana Inc., Tanya Bredemeier, and Robert Rico (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an objection1 to the Report (DE 36), to which Plaintiff filed a

1 The Court notes that the objection merely rehashes arguments, in some instances verbatim, that were presented to Judge Reid. As such, the objection simply disagrees with the Report’s conclusion. However, it is well settled that an objecting party may not “submit [] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to a [Report].” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan,

(W.D.N.Y. 1992)). Response (DE 39). The Court conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Defendants objected and a review of the remainder of the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed the Report, the Objection, the record, and applicable law, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report (DE 35) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant Grand Havana Master LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (DE 13) is DENIED. 3. Defendant Grand Havana Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (DE 23) is DENIED. 4. Defendants Tanya Bredemeier and Robert Rico’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (DE 25) is DENIED. 5. Defendants shall file answers to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 5th day of July, 2023. ran, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2