John Thielen v. Bentley Motors, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 4:25-cv-10046-GAYLES/SHAW-WILDER JOHN THIELEN, Plaintiff, v. BENTLEY MOTORS, INC., Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Omnibus Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Detra Shaw-Wilder (the “Report”) [ECF No. 29] regarding Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (“Defendant’s Motion”), [ECF No. 5], and Plaintiff John Thielen’s Motion to Confirm Arbitrator’s Final Award (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), [ECF No. 11]. On March 23, 2026, Judge Shaw-Wilder issued her Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted and that Defendant’s Motion be denied. [ECF No. 29]. On March 30, 2026, Defendant filed its Notice of Objections to Magistrate Report and Recommendations (the “Objections”). [ECF No. 31]. On April 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Response to the Objections (the “Response”). [ECF No. 33].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation 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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Report, Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Motions, Defendant’s Objections, and Plaintiffs Response.

The Court agrees with Judge Shaw-Wilder’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiffs Motion should be granted and that Defendant’s Motion should be denied.

CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Shaw-Wilder’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 29], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 5], is DENIED; (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Arbitrator’s Final Award, [ECF No. 11], is GRANTED. (4) The BBB AUTO LINE’s Arbitration Award, [ECF No. 1-4], is CONFIRMED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 15th day of April 2026.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIS T JUDGE