Opinion
Case No. 18-cv-80748-BLOOM/Reinhart
11-16-2018
DANIEL HALL, BURFORD CAPITAL LLC, and DUNDROD INVESTMENTS, LTD., Plaintiffs, v. HARRY SARGEANT, III, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Harry Sargeant, III's ("Defendant" or "Sargeant") Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [21] ("Motion"). The Court previously referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a Report and Recommendations. See ECF No. [26]. Judge Reinhart held a hearing on Defendant's Motion on September 20, 2018, ECF No. [38]. Thereafter, on October 1, 2018, Judge Reinhart issued a Report and Recommendations, ECF No. [41] ("R&R"), recommending that Defendant's Motion be granted only as to Plaintiff Burford Capital LLC's malicious prosecution claim and recommending that Burford not be granted leave to amend. Judge Reinhart recommends that the Motion be denied in all other respects.
On October 23, 2018, Defendant timely filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [45] ("Objections."). Defendant also filed a Request for Hearing, ECF No. [46], requesting a hearing to address contested issues of state and federal law addressed in the Objections and the procedural posture of this case. Plaintiffs filed their Response to the Objections, ECF No. [48] ("Response"), on November 6, 2018.
Defendant also filed a reply in support of the Objections, ECF No. [48], which the Court ordered stricken as improper. See ECF No. [50].
The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record, has conducted a de novo review of the record, including Judge Reinhart's Report and Recommendation, the Objections and Response, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) ("Where a proper, specific objection to the magistrate judge's report is made, it is clear that the district court must conduct a de novo review of that issue.").
Specifically, Defendant raises three principal objections: 1) there is no viable claim for breach of release because the release contains no executory promise and a fully performed settlement agreement cannot be breached; 2) the malicious prosecution claim fails because there was no favorable termination, Plaintiff Hall has no damages, and Plaintiffs cannot plead a lack of probable cause; and, 3) that Wilton-Brillhart and/or Colorado River abstention applies. Upon review, the Objections are not well-taken because they expand upon and reframe arguments already made in the Motion that were thoroughly and thoughtfully considered by Judge Reinhart, or they simply disagree with Judge Reinhart's conclusions. "It is improper for an objecting party to . . . submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a 'second bite at the apple' when they file objections to a R & R." Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). Moreover, the Court finds Judge Reinhart's R&R to be well-reasoned and correct. As a result, Defendant's Objections are overruled, and the Court finds no reason to grant an additional hearing with respect to issues already raised before, and thoroughly addressed by Judge Reinhart.
This argument was made for the first time in the Objections, and therefore the Court need not consider it. See Williams, 557 F.3d at 1292 (the District Court has discretion to decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation). --------
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Judge Reinhart's R&R, ECF No. [41], is ADOPTED;
2. The Motion, ECF No. [21], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, in that Count III is dismissed without leave to amend as to Plaintiff Burford Capital LLC. In all other respects, the Motion is denied;
3. The Request for Hearing, ECF No. [46], is DENIED; and
4. Defendant shall file his answer on or before November 26, 2018.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th day of November, 2018.
/s/ _________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record