Opinion
1:21-cv-23363-JLK
04-29-2022
JAY WOLF, individually, and as guardian for KAREN WOLF, Plaintiff, v. FOUR MIDTOWN MIAMI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jacqueline Becerra United States Magistrate Judge
THIS MATTER is before this Court on Plaintiff JAY WOLF's, individually, and as guardian for KAREN WOLF, Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion for Preliminary Injunction”). ECF No. [20]. The Honorable James Lawrence King referred this matter to the undersigned. ECF No. [22]. The Parties appeared for a hearing before the undersigned on April 26, 2022. ECF No. [40]. At the hearing, Plaintiff modified his requested relief to a more limited scope of relief, at least for purposes of a Preliminary Injunction. During a break in the hearing, Defense counsel contacted Defendant and an agreement as to the relief sought at this stage was reached by the Parties and jointly proposed to the Court.
Having carefully reviewed the Motion and upon the hearing, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Parties' joint proposal, as detailed below, be entered as an Order of the Court and that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. [20], be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The undersigned recommends that, as agreed by the Parties, the Court enter a preliminary injunction in which Defendant shall be required to call Plaintiff Jay Wolf prior to or contemporaneously with calling the police concerning Karen Wolf's behavior; provided, however, that in exigent circumstances, the police may be called first, but Plaintiff Jay Wolf will be called immediately or as soon as practicable thereafter. This relief shall continue until a final judgment is entered in this matter, or upon further Order of this Court.
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within TWO (2) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. The undersigned finds that a shortened objection period is appropriate given the Parties' agreement expressed at the hearing. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of anything in this Report and Recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party's “right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” See 11thCir. R. 3-1 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep't Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
DONE AND ORDERED