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 on the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Madison Gold LLC, Jan S. Wimpfheimer, and Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates, LLP, [ECF No. 72] (“Madison Gold’s Motion to Dismiss”) and the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants East Hudson Capital, LLC and White Road Capital LLC [ECF No. 71] (“East Hudson’s Motion to Dismiss”). This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis for a ruling on all pretrial non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 48]. On February 4, 2025, she issued her report recommending that Madison Gold’s Motion to Dismiss be granted, and that East Hudson’s Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot [ECF No. 93]. No objections were filed to the Report.

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).

This Court finds no clear error with Judge Louis’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees with her conclusion that Madison Gold’s Motion to Dismiss be granted, and that East Hudson’s Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot.

CONCLUSION After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Louis’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 93], is ADOPTED in full; (2) The Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Madison Gold LLC, Jan S. Wimpfheimer, and Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates, LLP is GRANTED. (3) The Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants East Hudson Capital, LLC and White Road Capital LLC is DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of February, 2025.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIS T JUDGE