United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

RMK Merrill Stevens LLC, Plaintiff,

v. 

M/Y “Lifestyle,” and others, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-23096-Civ-Scola 

Order on Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations 

The Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendant USAA 

Federal Savings Bank (ECF No. 47) was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez for a Report and Recommendations. (ECF No. 48.) 

On July 12, 2024, Judge Sanchez issued a report (Rep. & Recs., ECF No. 54), 

recommending that the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied, the 

clerk’s entry of default with respect to USAA be stricken, and that Count III of 

the Amended Complaint be dismissed. Judge Sanchez’s recommendations were 

based on his findings that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 

Plaintiff’s claim against USAA “and, in any event, that claim fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. (Rep. & Recs. at 4.) The Plaintiff has 

filed limited objections. (ECF No. 55.) After a careful, de novo review, the Court 

adopts the report’s recommendations, clarifying only that that Judge Sanchez’s 

conclusion that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted was in the alternative and is not itself a final judgment on the merits. 

Accordingly, the Court largely adopts Judge Sanchez’s report and 

recommendations (ECF No. 54), thus denying the Plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment against USAA (ECF No. 47), striking the Clerk’s Entry of Default 

(ECF No. 46), and dismissing Count III of the Amended Complaint without 

prejudice. Therefore, the Court grants in part and overrules in part the 

Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 55), as more fully explained below. 

The Plaintiff does not object to Judge Sanchez’s finding that the Court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count III and that therefore its motion for 

default judgment should be denied. (ECF No. 55 at 1.) Rather, the Plaintiff 

objects to Judge Sanchez’s findings that it failed to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted “in order to preserve any issues addressed as they relate 

to the remaining claims, enforcing existing court orders, and/or res judicata on 

the basis of failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 55 at 1.) 

Case 1:22-cv-23096-RNS Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2024 Page 1 of 3
The Court agrees with Judge Sanchez that it lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over Claim III of the amended complaint. The Plaintiff does not 

assert that there is federal question or admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 

Additionally, Count III seeks a total of $63,736.16 from USAA (ECF No. 47 at 

4.) Therefore, there is also no diversity subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1332. Finally, the Plaintiff does not dispute that the claim against 

USAA does not arise from a common nucleus of operative facts as Counts I and 

II of the amended complaint, claims over which this Court does have subject 

matter jurisdiction. Thus, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Lucero v. Trosch, 121 F.3d 591, 597 (11th Cir. 1997) 

(explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) “confers supplemental jurisdiction over all 

claims which arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact with a 

substantial federal claim”).

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count III, it is 

“obligated” to dismiss that count of the amended complaint. Armstrong v. 

United States, 2021 WL 6101492, at *1 (11th Cir. Dec. 21, 2021). Moreover, 

without subject matter jurisdiction, the Court may not consider the merits of 

Count III. See id. (“Indeed, a court may not consider the merits of a complaint 

unless and until it is assured of its subject matter jurisdiction.”) (cleaned up). 

Therefore, though Judge Sanchez’s conclusion that Count III fails to state a 

claim upon relief may be granted is well-reasoned and most likely correct, the 

Court agrees with the Plaintiff to the extent that Judge Sanchez’s findings with 

respect to the sufficiency of Count III should not be given final effect. (ECF No. 

55 at 1.) Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it will not 

address whether Count III, if the Court had jurisdiction, states a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

In sum then, the Court largely adopts Judge Sanchez’s report and 

recommendations (ECF No. 54), clarifying only that Judge Sanchez’s 

conclusion that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted was in the alternative and is not itself a final judgment on the merits.

Accordingly, the Court largely adopts Judge Sanchez’s report and 

recommendations (ECF No. 54), thus denying the Plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment against USAA (ECF No. 47), striking the Clerk’s Entry of Default 

(ECF No. 46), and dismissing Count III of the Amended Complaint without 

prejudice. Therefore, the Court grants in part and overrules in part the 

Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 55). 

Case 1:22-cv-23096-RNS Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2024 Page 2 of 3
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on August 20, 2024.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23096-RNS Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2024 Page 3 of 3