Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Beemer & Associates XLVII, L.L.C. et al, No. 3:2010cv00576 - Document 123 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (122 in 3:10-cv-576-J-32JBT; 198 in 3:10-cv-577-J-32JBT) re Defendants' Motions to Amend Final Judgment to Determine Proper Amount of Setoff and Deficiency and for Stay of Collection Activities (116 in 3:10-cv-576-J-32JBT; 190 in 3:10-cv-577-J-32JBT). The Motions are denied. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 9/25/2014. (BJB)

Download PDF
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Beemer & Associates XLVII, L.L.C. et al Doc. 123 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, v. Case No. 3:10-cv-576-J-32JBT BEEMER & ASSOCIATES XLVII, L.L.C., et al., Defendants. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, v. Case No. 3:10-cv-577-J-32JBT BEEMER & ASSOCIATES XLVII, L.L.C., et al., Defendants. ORDER These cases are before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Amend Final Judgment to Determine Proper Amount of Setoff and Deficiency and for Stay of Collection Activities (Case No. 3:10-cv-576-J-32JBT (“Case 576”), Doc. 116; Case No. 3:10-cv-577-J-32JBT (“Case 577”), Doc. 190.) On July 11, 2014, the assigned United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Case 576, Doc. 122; Case 577, Doc. 198) recommending that the motions be denied because the requests for an amendment of the judgment are premature and the requests for an indefinite stay are inappropriate. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed in either case, and Dockets.Justia.com the time in which to do so has now passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); M.D. Fla. R. 6.02(a). On the same day the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation, the Defendants filed a motion for a protective order staying discovery in Case 577, presenting the same arguments as the earlier motion to stay, but with more specifics about the discovery currently taking place. (Case 577, Doc. 197.) The Magistrate Judge denied the motion for protective order for the same reasons he recommends denying the initial motion to stay. (Case 577, Doc. 203.) Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Case 576, Doc. 122; Case 577, Doc. 198) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. Defendants’ Motions to Amend Final Judgment to Determine Proper Amount of Setoff and Deficiency and for Stay of Collection Activities (Case 576, Doc. 116; Case 577, Doc. 190.) are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 25th day of September, 2014. 2 bjb Copies to: Honorable Joel B. Toomey United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record 3

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.