Valley National Bank v. Dutta Horse Transportation, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 9:24-cv-81492-LEIBOWITZ/REINHART VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. DUTTA HORSE TRANSPORTATION, INC., , Defendants. __________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation on Motion for Final Default Judgment (the “R&R”) [ECF No. 101], filed on March 30, 2026, recommending that Cross- Plaintiff Dutta Horse Transportation, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 100] be DENIED. No objections to the R&R were filed during the 14-day objection period. After careful review of the filings, applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Reinhart’s R&R in its entirety.

“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).

The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Reinhart’s R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Reinhart’s R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. ‘The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s R&R [ECF No. 101] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2. ‘The Motion [ECF No. 100] is DENIED.

3. Counts I, II, II, V, VI, and VII of the Cross-Complaint [ECF No. 43 29-63, 75-109] ate DISMISSED with prejudice.

4. ‘The remaining crossclaims (Counts IV and VIII) of the Cross-Complaint [ECF No. 43 at 13-14 4[§| 64-74, 21-22 44] 1-4] are DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 14, 2026. ® DAVID 8. LEIBOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record Venture Plus Promotions, LLC Travel Plus Promotions, LLC Wayne C Jenkins Avery Spencer Chapman Chapman Law Group PLC 12008 South Shore Boulevard, Suite 105 Wellington, FL 33414