ABS Healthcare Services, LLC v. SHADER
0:21-cv-60859
| S.D. Fla. | Dec 9, 2021Background:
- Plaintiffs ABS Healthcare Services, LLC, et al., sued multiple defendants; defendants filed a Joint Motion to Temporarily Lift Stay and for Imposition of Sanctions.
- Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal compelled arbitration; the parties submitted the dispute to the American Arbitration Association and the matter was consolidated into AAA Case No. 1-21-0004-6909.
- Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt issued an R&R recommending denial without prejudice of the defendants’ motion, concluding sanctions would be premature and defendants had not shown bad faith or clear-and-convincing proof.
- Magistrate Judge Hunt recommended the district court retain jurisdiction so defendants could renew the motion, if necessary, after arbitration concluded.
- Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the 14-day period; the district court reviewed the R&R for clear error and found none.
- The district court accepted and adopted the R&R, denied the defendants’ motion without prejudice, and allowed the defendants to re-file after arbitration.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to lift the stay and impose sanctions under the court’s inherent power | Arbitration pending; sanctions premature; no bad faith shown | Seek lifting of stay and sanctions based on alleged misconduct/bad faith | Denied without prejudice; premature; defendants failed to show bad faith or clear-and-convincing proof |
| Standard of review for an unobjected-to magistrate R&R | No objections → clear-error review is sufficient | (No timely objection filed) | Court applied clear-error review and adopted the R&R |
| Whether the court should retain jurisdiction to permit refiling after arbitration | Retain jurisdiction to allow re-raising issues post-arbitration | Wanted immediate relief via sanctions now | Court will retain jurisdiction and permit defendants to re-file after arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (de novo review required only when timely objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition are filed)
- Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736 (11th Cir. 1988) (failure to object to magistrate judge findings precludes later challenge)
- Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (same principle regarding waiver from failure to object)
- Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1988) (definition of the ‘‘clear error’’ standard)