UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 24-22995-CV-WILLIAMS

ROSA GORONI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report and Recommendations on Motion to Dismiss (DE 30) (“Report”). In the Report, Chief Judge Goodman recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 20) (“Motion”) be granted in part and denied in part and that Plaintiff be given leave to amend her Amended Complaint (DE 15). (DE 30 at 4, 53.) Specifically, the Report recommends the Court grant the Motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of Count I (negligence) and Count II (failure to warn). (Id. at 23.) The Report finds those Counts “improperly plead both negligence and vicarious liability in the same count” and comingle multiple theories of negligence within each Count. (Id. at 21– 23.) Next, the Report recommends the Court deny the Motion insofar as it argues that Counts I and II insufficiently plead notice because the Amended Complaint cites to a prior substantially similar incident. (Id. at 39.) Finally, the Report recommends the Court deny the Motion’s request that the vicarious liability claims, Counts III and IV, be dismissed, concluding that the Amended Complaint “sufficiently identifie[s] the allegedly negligent employees through their roles and tasks.” (Id. at 52.) Defendant filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendations (DE 32) (“Objection”).1 Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s Objection (DE 35), and Defendant filed a Reply (DE 40). The Court conducted a de novo review of the portion

of the Report to which Defendant objected and a review of the remainder of the Report for clear error. Upon careful review of the Report, the Motion, the briefing, the record, and the applicable law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Chief Judge Goodman’s Report (DE 30) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 20) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint (DE 15) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. If Plaintiff believes she can cure the deficiencies identified in the Report,

she may file a second amended complaint on or before March 10, 2025.

1 The Court notes that the Objection merely rehashes arguments that were presented to Chief Judge Goodman and, as such, 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, No. 10-23641-CIV,

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

(W.D.N.Y. 1992)). DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 24th day of February, 2025.

KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3