Opinion
CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-21784-GAYLES/LOUIS
03-26-2021
AUGUSTINO SANTIAGO, LILLY LEYVA, GUILLERMO CREAMER, and MARIA ACEITUNO, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Miami Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis's Report and Recommendation (the "Report") [ECF No. 43] regarding Defendant University of Miami's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (the "Motion") [ECF No. 16]. On April 29, 2020, Plaintiffs Augustino Santiago, Lilly Leyva, Guillermo Creamer, and Maria Aceituno, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the University of Miami Retirement Savings Plan, filed their Class Action Complaint pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) and (3) against Defendant. [ECF No. 1]. On October 15, 2020, the Court referred this case to Judge Louis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 35]. On March 1, 2021, Judge Louis issued her Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 43]. As to Plaintiffs' breach of the duty of loyalty claims, Judge Louis recommends granting the Motion as to Counts I, II, and III. Id. at 6. As to Plaintiffs' breach of the duty of prudence claims, Judge Louis recommends granting the Motion as to Counts II and III, id. at 16-17, and denying the Motion as to Count I, id. at 12. Defendant timely filed objections, [ECF No. 44], to which Plaintiffs responded. [ECF No. 45].
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 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Louis's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's objection as to the legal standard is meritless, and the Court finds that Judge Louis applied the proper standard to the Motion. Moreover, the remainder of Defendant's objections are nothing more than a rehashing of arguments Defendant made in its Motion to Dismiss and before Judge Louis. Several courts in this district have found that "[i]t 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." Sanchez v. Jones, No. 17-CIV-21911, 2019 WL 8892627, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alternations in original) (quoting Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-CIV-23641, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012)); see also Estrada v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 14- CIV-23388, 2018 WL 1811907, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2018) ("[I]f the objections are improper, in that they . . . 'simply rehash or reiterate the original briefs to the magistrate judge,' . . . that will not suffice to invoke a district court's de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations. Thus a court need only review the magistrate judge's report for clear error." (citations omitted)). The Court therefore agrees that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated in Judge Louis's well-reasoned Report.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis's Report and Recommendation on Defendant University of Miami's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), [ECF No. 16], AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.
2. Defendant University of Miami's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), [ECF No. 16], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. Plaintiffs Augustino Santiago, Lilly Leyva, Guillermo Creamer, and Maria Aceituno's Class Action Complaint, [ECF No. 1], shall proceed as to their breach of duty of prudence claim in Count I.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of March, 2021.
/s/_________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE