Monterroso Romero v. Agent Au Pair, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SHARON PENELOPE MONTERROSO ROMERO, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1749-JSS-RMN JAMES RAY FRANKLIN, Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 1) as a shotgun pleading and moves to dismiss the claims against him—counts six through eleven, (see id. at 33– 48)—for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. 12.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Dkt. 15.)

The magistrate judge assigned to this case recommends granting the motion in part and denying it in part and permitting Plaintiff to amend her complaint. (Dkt. 57.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed.

Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district court reviews any legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation in full.

Accordingly: 1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 57) is ADOPTED.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Counts seven, eight, and ten in the complaint (Dkt. 1 at 34–37, 40–42) are DISMISSED. The motion is otherwise denied.

3. On or before August 29, 2025, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies discussed in the recommendation (Dkt. 57) if she can do so in good faith and in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August 14, 2025.

2 = sours — NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record -3-