UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-304-SPC-KCD

ANYWHERE ADVISORS LLC and ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE INC.,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek’s Report and Recommendation (R&R). Judge Dudek recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice. Plaintiff Mayer Amschel Rothschild (Rothschild) has not objected to the R&R. After a careful and independent review of the parties’ papers, record, and applicable law, the Court adopts Judge Dudek’s R&R and dismisses the case. A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

And legal conclusions are reviewed de novo even without any objection. Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994).

Though Rothschild has not objected to the R&R, he filed an amended complaint during the objections period. (Doc. 16). But as discussed below, Rothschild’s late filing of an amended complaint does not alter the analysis. Rothschild was directed to file an amended complaint by May 12, 2024,

because his original complaint was a shotgun pleading that contained improper class action allegations. (Doc. 4). He requested an extension (Doc. 7) and thereafter was directed to file an amended complaint by June 11, 2024 (Doc. 8). Rothschild requested a second extension of time (Doc. 12), which the

Court also granted (Doc. 14). This gave Rothschild until July 18, 2024, to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 14). The Court warned Rothschild that “no further extensions will be granted” and that failure to file an amended complaint by July 18, 2024, “will result in a recommendation that this case be

dismissed.” (Doc. 14). True to his word, Judge Dudek recommended that the case be dismissed when Rothschild failed to file an amended complaint by the July 18, 2024, deadline. (Doc. 15). This chain of events clearly shows what Judge Dudek

observed—Rothschild’s lack of diligent prosecution. And so Rothschild’s first complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for the reasons outlined in the R&R and above. But Judge Dudek’s R&R, lacking clairvoyance, did not discuss Rothschild’s amended complaint. Rothschild did not file his amended

complaint until nearly two weeks after the R&R was issued. (Doc. 16). This amended complaint is due for dismissal for both its tardiness and its disregard of Judge Dudek’s directives. The amended complaint was filed 19 days after it was due, which both

violates Judge Dudek’s order and shows a failure to prosecute. And the amended complaint also disregarded Judge Dudek’s order to fix the original complaint’s shotgun pleading problems and remove class action allegations. The amended complaint is still a shotgun pleading and still contains class

action allegations. In fact, the amended complaint’s opening header is “Class Action Considerations.” (Doc. 16 at 1). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. 2. Rothschild’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) are

DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any deadlines and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 12, 2024.

tite POLSTER otal UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record