UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81446-CIV-CANNON

KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MATA CHORWADI, INC. and

ANTHONY VARONE, 

Defendants.

__________________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 41] 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Counts III-VI for Declaratory Judgment (the “Motion”) 

[ECF No. 32], filed on April 27, 2023. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. 

Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 36]. Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued a 

Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”) 

[ECF No. 41]. Specifically, Judge Reinhart recommends that the Motion be denied as to Counts 

I, II, III, IV, and VI and granted as to Count V [ECF No. 41 p. 10]. Defendants and Plaintiff filed 

Notices of No Intention to File Objections to the Report [ECF Nos. 44, 45]. 

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file 

specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation 

to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court 

reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, 

Case 9:22-cv-81446-AMC Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2023 Page 1 of 3
 CASE NO. 22-81446-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2 

or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, 

the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the 

record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence 

of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston 

v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). 

Following de novo review, the Court agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes 

that the Motion [ECF No. 32] should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as 

indicated below. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 41] is ACCEPTED. 

2. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Counts III–

VI for Declaratory Judgment [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART. 

a. Count V of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 31 ¶¶ 35–37] is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1

b. Plaintiff’s remaining claims (Counts I–IV and VI) may proceed. 

3. Defendants shall file an answer to Counts I–IV and VI of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint [ECF No. 31] on or before July 7, 2023. 

4. On or before July 13, 2023, the parties shall file a joint proposed notice scheduling 

mediation in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF No. 42]. 

 

1 The Court previously granted Plaintiff “one final opportunity to file an Amended Complaint” 

[ECF No. 30 p. 2 (emphasis in original)]. As such, Count V is due to be dismissed with prejudice. 

Case 9:22-cv-81446-AMC Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2023 Page 2 of 3
 CASE NO. 22-81446-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 23rd day of June 2023.

 ________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81446-AMC Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2023 Page 3 of 3