The Landing, L.L.C. et al v. MG Affordable Master, LLC et al, No. 1:2023cv00377 - Document 70 (S.D. Ala. 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, 64 Report & Recommendation is ADOPTED as set out. Dfts' request for oral argument is DENIED. The objections are OVERRULED. Plfs' 43 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, & Dfts' 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 9/25/24. (tot)

Download PDF
The Landing, L.L.C. et al v. MG Affordable Master, LLC et al Doc. 70 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION THE LANDING, L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. MG AFFORDABLE MASTER, LLC, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-377-TFM-B MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On August 12, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation which recommends Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 43) be granted and Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 32) be denied. See Doc. 64. Defendants timely filed objections (Doc. 65), Plaintiffs timely filed their response to the objections (Doc. 66), and Defendants timely replied (Doc. 69). The Report and Recommendation (R&R) is now ripe for review. The Court reviewed the amended complaint (Doc. 21), answer (Doc. 31), the underlying cross motions for judgment on the pleadings (Docs. 32, 43), responses (Docs. 42, 50), replies (Docs. 50, 57), the transcript of the oral arguments held on March 14, 2024 (Doc 59), notice of supplemental authority (Doc. 60), the response to the supplemental authority (Doc. 63), the R&R (Doc. 64), the objections (Doc. 65), response to objections (Doc. 66), reply to objections (Doc. 69), and applicable caselaw. Though Defendants request oral argument on their objections, the Court finds that oral arguments are unnecessary for the resolution of the issues as the matters have been extensively briefed and oral arguments already occurred before the Magistrate Judge which the undersigned reviewed. Therefore, the request for oral arguments is DENIED. The Court Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com applies a de novo review to the entire matter given that the objections cover pretty much the entire R&R and seek to start anew. In fact, the objections even change some of the positions originally asserted by the Defendants. Regardless, the Court has reviewed this case with new eyes. The Court finds that the objections are OVERRULED for the reasons articulated in the response to objections. The Court agrees with the overall analysis of the Magistrate Judge, finds that it is well-reasoned, and notes that the undersigned finds that the contract terms are clear. Therefore, after due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised (which is essentially everything), and a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 64) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 43) is GRANTED and the Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 32) is DENIED. A separate judgment will issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2024. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.