Volvo Financial Services v. Calderoni Trucking, LLC, and Carli Calderon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION VOLVO FINANCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff, Case No. 8:25-cv-2030-TPB-AAS vs. CALDERONI TRUCKING, LLC, and CARLI CALDERON, Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN PART This matter comes before the Court on the report and recommendation of Amanda A. Sansone, United States Magistrate Judge, entered December 18, 2025. (Doc. 18). Judge Sansone recommends that “Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment” (Doc. 17) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Sansone recommends that Plaintiff Volvo Financial Services’ motion for default judgment be granted as to Counts I and II of the complaint, and that Defendants be held jointly and severally liable for the unpaid note including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, late charges, and corresponding attorney’s fees and costs in an amount to be determined in a separate order. Judge Sansone recommends that the motion for default judgment be denied as to Count III, a claim for replevin, because the complaint fails to plead all the necessary elements of replevin.

Plaintiff filed a partial objection to the report on January 14, 2026, arguing that its complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for replevin, and therefore its motion for default judgment should be granted on Count III as well as on Counts I and II. (Doc. 23). Plaintiff alternatively argues that it should be allowed leave to amend its complaint to cure any deficiencies.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sansone’s well- reasoned report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in part. As to Counts I and II, the Court adopts in full Judge Sansone’s factual and legal analysis. As to Count III, the defects described in the report appear to be curable. The Court therefore will defer ruling as to this count and hereby grants Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. Following the filing of an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall promptly file a renewed motion for default judgment.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED IN PART. (2) Asto Counts I and II of the complaint, the report and recommendation is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (3) Asto Count III, the Court defers ruling on Plaintiff's objection and grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies described in the report and recommendation. The amended complaint is due on or before February 26, 2026. (4) “Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment” (Doc. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and ruling on the motion is DEFERRED IN PART as set forth herein. (5) Following the filing of an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall promptly file a renewed motion for default judgment.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 12th day of February, 2026.

TOMBARBER — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3