ROSH CHODESH II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. WIMPFHEIMER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 23-cv-22148-GAYLES/LOUIS ROSH CHODESH II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAN S. WIMPFHEIMER, et al., Defendants. _____________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Joint Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 30] filed by Defendants Madison Gold, LLC (“Madison Gold”), Jan S. Wimpfheimer (“Wimpfheimer”), and Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates, LLP’s (“SWA”) (together, the “Moving Defendants”). [ECF No. 30]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren F.

Louis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 53]. On February 27, 2024, Judge Louis issued her Report recommending that the Moving Defendants’ Motion be granted and that the Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice (the “Report”). [ECF No. 57]. The Moving Defendants objected to the Report, but only as to the Report’s findings regarding personal jurisdiction. [ECF No. 58]. No other party filed objections.

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 objection is 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 objection is 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).

Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Louis’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants was proper, that the Motion to Dismiss should be granted without prejudice, and that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

CONCLUSION After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Louis’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 57], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 30], is GRANTED; and (3) This action is closed for administrative purposes.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of February, 2024.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE