From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Macias v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Dec 8, 2021
21-cv-20813-GAYLES/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-20813-GAYLES/TORRES

12-08-2021

BERNABE MACIAS, JR., ESPERANZA A. MACIAS, and MARIA MACIAS CARRERAS, individually and as personal Representative of the ESTATE of ALVARO CARLOS CARRERAS, deceased Plaintiff, v. CELEBRITY CRUISES INC., Defendant.


ORDER

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Celebrity Cruises Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 7]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 11]. On November 19, 2021, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”). [ECF No. 17]. No. objections have been filed.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made 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 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that (1) the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, (2) Count One be dismissed with leave to amend, (3) Count Two be dismissed with prejudice, (4) Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial stricken, and (5) Defendant's motion to strike non-pecuniary damages allegations from the Estate of Alvaro Carlos Carreras' claims pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act be denied without prejudice. The Court finds no clear error with Judge Torres's recommendation and agrees that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Judge Torres's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 17], is adopted in full;

(2) Defendant Celebrity Cruise Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, [ECF No. 7], is granted in part and denied in part;

(3) Count One of the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;

(4) Count Two of the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice;

(5) Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial is stricken;

(6) Defendant's motion to strike non-pecuniary damages allegations from the Estate of Alvaro Carlos Carreras' claims pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act is denied without prejudice;

(7) Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

Macias v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Dec 8, 2021
21-cv-20813-GAYLES/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2021)
Case details for

Macias v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BERNABE MACIAS, JR., ESPERANZA A. MACIAS, and MARIA MACIAS CARRERAS…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Date published: Dec 8, 2021

Citations

21-cv-20813-GAYLES/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2021)

Citing Cases

Finch v. Carnival Corp.

See Am. Marine Tech, Inc. v. World Grp. Yachting, Inc., 418 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1079 (S.D. Fla. 2019). v.…

Dome v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.

However, such a determination is better made at summary judgment with the benefit of discovery. SeeMacias v.…