Minerva26

Li v. Walsh

2020 WL 9460640 (S.D. Fla. 2020)

September 8, 2020

Matthewman, William, United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

The Pro Se Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court's orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in the Court recommending dismissal of their claims against Defendant Matthews. The Court left the decision of whether to dismiss with or without prejudice up to the discretion of the District Judge.

Additional Decisions

LAN LI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH WALSH, et al., Defendants.
LAN LI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PNC BANK, N.A., and RUBEN RAMIREZ, Defendants

Civ. No. 16-81871 LEAD CASE

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

Signed September 08, 2020

Counsel

Brett Drew Lieberman, Edelboim Lieberman Revah Oshinsky, PLLC, Miami, FL, Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, Rongping Wu, Dgw Kramer LLP, New York, NY, Matthew Fornaro, Matthew Fornaro, P.A., Coral Springs, FL, for Plaintiff Lan Li.
Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, Rongping Wu, Dgw Kramer LLP, New York, NY, Matthew Fornaro, Matthew Fornaro, P.A., Coral Springs, FL, for Plaintiffs Ying Tan, Tao Xiong, Junqiang Feng, Ran Chen, Xiang Shu, Hao Lou, Xiang Chunhua, Bei Zhu, Qiong Deng, Qiongfang Zhu, Yulong Tang, Lili Zhang, Shuangyun Wang, Wenhao Zhang, Sha Shi, Yajun Kang, Chengyu Gu, Yan Chen, Dongsheng Zhu, Rujing Wei, Juewei Zhou, Min Li, Chunning Ye, Hongru Pan, Yuanbo Wang, Shu Jiang, Ying Fei, Li Dongsheng, Mohammad Zargar, Reza Siamak Nia, Tang Cheok Fai, Ali Adampeyra.
Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, Dgw Kramer LLP, New York, NY, Matthew Fornaro, Matthew Fornaro, P.A., Coral Springs, FL, for Plaintiffs Kuang Yaoping, Xiaonan Wang.
Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, Rongping Wu, Dgw Kramer LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs Zhiling Gan, Cuilian Li, Halil Erseven, Chaohui Li.
Brett Drew Lieberman, Edelboim Lieberman Revah Oshinsky, PLLC, Miami, FL, Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Law Office of Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Jackson, WY, for Plaintiffs Liyan Feng c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Shaoqing Zeng c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Min Cui c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Qingyun Yu c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Yingjun Yang c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Baoping Liu 8205 Mirasol Irvine, CA 92620, Daqin Weng c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Xiaoping Zhang c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Shaoping Huang c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Changyue Liu c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Feng Guo c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Zheng Yu c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Tingting Sun c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Yawen Li c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Tonghui Luan c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China.
Brett Drew Lieberman, Edelboim Lieberman Revah Oshinsky, PLLC, Miami, FL, Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Law Office of Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Jackson, WY, for Plaintiffs Ruji Li c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Ling Li c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Yi Zhao c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Xiao Sun c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Li Zhang c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China.
Matthew Fornaro, Matthew Fornaro, P.A., Coral Springs, FL, for Plaintiff Shahriar Ebrahimian 126 Taleghani St. Bahar Intersection Tehran 1561833894 Iran.
Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, Dgw Kramer LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Mohammadr eza Sedaghat.
Sara Salehin, Pro Se.
Sanaz Salehin, Pro Se.
Henry B. Handler, Seth Adam Kolton, Pro Hac Vice, Weiss Handler Angelos & Cornwell PA, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendants USREDA, LLC, JJW Consultancy, Ltd., Palm House Hotel, LLLP.
Christopher William Kammerer, John F. Mariani, Kammerer Mariani PLLC, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendants Robert Matthews, Palm House, LLC, Palm House PB, LLC, Mirabia, LLC, Bonaventure 22, LLC, MARIA, Alibi LLC.
Philip Joseph Landau, Shraiberg, Landau & Page, P.A., Boca Raton, FL, Christopher William Kammerer, John F. Mariani, Kammerer Mariani PLLC, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant 160 Royal Palm LLC.
Gregory R. Elder, Foreman Friedman, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendants Leslie Robert Evans, Leslie Robert Evans & Associates, P.A.
Larry Allen Zink, Zink, Zink & Zink Co., LPA, Canton, OH, for Defendant KK-PB Financial, LLC.
Christopher William Kammerer, Kammerer Mariani PLLC, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant Alibi, LLC.
Joseph Walsh, Royal Palm Beach, FL, Pro Se.
Joseph Walsh, Jr., Royal Palm Beach, FL, Pro Se.
J. Marcus Payne, Glencoe, IL, Pro Se.
David Derrico, Boca Raton, FL, Pro Se.
Nicholas Laudano, Branford, CT, Pro Se.
Botticelli Advisors, LLC, Palm Beach, FL, Pro Se.

Matthewman, William, United States Magistrate Judge

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE NAMED PRO SE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT GERRY MATTHEWS BE DISMISSED

*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte, following two Orders to Show Cause, and an Order Compelling Discovery, dating back to January of this year [DEs 575, 584, 636]. In the most recent iteration of the current ongoing discovery dispute between Defendant Gerry Matthews and the named Pro Se Plaintiffs, on April 27, 2020, Defendant Matthews filed a Motion For Discovery Sanctions [DE 627] against BAOPING LIU, CHANGYU LIU, DAQIN WENG, FENG GUO, LI ZHANG, LING LI, LIYAN FENG, MIN CUI, QINGYUN YU, RUJI LI, SHAOPING HUANG, SHAOQING ZENG, TINGTING SUN, TONGHUI LUAN, ZIAO SUN, XIAOPING ZHANG, YAWEN LI, YI ZHAO, YINGJUN YANG, and ZHEN YU (the Pro Se Plaintiffs). Pursuant to this Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedure, [DE 284], the named Pro Se Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion for Sanctions were due on or before May 4, 2020. No response has been filed by any of the named Pro Se Plaintiffs. The Court issued a Second Order to Show Cause on May 14, 2020 [DE 636], once again directing the named Pro Se Plaintiffs to show cause why sanctions—including dismissal—should not be entered against them on or before June 4, 2020. To date, no response has been made.

To fully grasp the extent of the named Pro Se Plaintiffs’ failure to adequately participate in the discovery process, it is necessary to go back nearly nine months. This will be discussed in detail in the next section, infra. To summarize, the named Pro Se Plaintiffs have engaged in nine months of dilatory, obstructive, and evasive, discovery behavior, and they have adopted confusing and contradictory positions, related to written discovery served upon them by Defendant Matthews. They have failed to comply with three separate specific discovery Orders of this Court, as well as their general obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and their specific obligations in this litigation arising from the Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedure. Following a careful review of the entire history of this case and the applicable case law, the Court has evaluated the range of sanctions that may be imposed for such conduct. As is fully explained below, the Court has concluded that it has no other option at this point but to recommend the sanction of dismissal. No lesser sanction will preserve the authority of the Court and end the delay and dilatory conduct by the named Pro Se Plaintiffs in this case.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 24, 2020, Defendant Gerry Matthews filed a Motion Compel Discovery by the named Pro Se Plaintiffs. [DE 575]. When no response to the Motion had been filed within the deadlines set forth in the Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedure, the Court issued its First Order to Show Cause, [DE 576], ordering the named Pro Se Plaintiffs to show cause why the Motion should not be granted by default, and why sanctions should not be entered against them.

Thereafter, on February 19, 2020, this Court entered its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Gerry Matthews’ Motion to Compel [DE 584] (hereinafter “Order Compelling Discovery”). In the Order Compelling Discovery, the Court directed Pro Se Plaintiffs to “fully and completely respond to Defendant's (1) Second Set of Interrogatories; (2) Second Request for Production; and (3) First Request for Admissions on or before March 20, 2020.” [DE 584, at 2]. Pro Se Plaintiffs did not produce any of the discovery by March 20, 2020, in violation of the Order Compelling Discovery, this Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedure, the First Order to Show Cause, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court notes that the named Pro Se Plaintiffs still have not satisfactorily complied with any of these Orders or authorities.

*2 On March 27, 2020, defense counsel for Gerry Matthews contacted Baoping Liu, the court-designated, non-attorney contact person for Pro Se Plaintiffs, to inquire about Pro Se Plaintiffs’ collective failure to serve responses in compliance with the Order Compelling Discovery. Ms. Liu responded the same day, apologizing for having missed the deadline and stating as follows: “Now we are just arrange (sic) the document and hopefully can submit on Monday.” [DE 627-1] After receiving Ms. Liu's apology, defense counsel e-mailed Ms. Liu a copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order on Pending Discovery Disputes Following March 20, 2020 Hearing [DE 611] (hereinafter “Second Order”), as directed by paragraph 6 of the Second Order. Ms. Liu did not respond after receiving the Second Order. In fact, adequate responses still have not been served upon him. [DEs 646, 681].

Paradoxically, on April 15, 2020, Ms. Liu served defense counsel for Gerry Matthews with the “20 Plaintiffs Withdrawal and Cancellation Partial Defendants” (hereinafter, “Withdrawal and Cancellation”). [DE 627-3.]. The Withdrawal and Cancellation purports to “cancel” Gerry Matthews as a defendant in this case and withdraw the Pro Se Plaintiffs’ claims against him.

Then, on April 24, 2020, Ms. Liu served by e-mail a document entitled “20 Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Answers to Defendant Gerry Matthews’ Second Set of Requests” (hereinafter, “Discovery Response”). [DE 627-4]. However, these discovery responses were facially insufficient, replete with errors, and ran afoul of the Court's prior orders. [DEs 611, 584]. Additionally, there was still a complete failure to respond to certain discovery requests, such as Matthews’ Second Request for Production of Documents.

After conducting a careful review of the aforementioned discovery requests and purported responses, appended to Matthews’ filings, the Court issued its Second Order to Show Cause on May 14, 2020 [DE 636], in which the Court found that the named Pro Se Plaintiffs failed to adequately respond to Defendant Matthews’ discovery, had failed to comply with this Court's prior orders, and had repeatedly engaged in dilatory and obstructionist discovery conduct. Further, this Order advised the named Pro Se Plaintiffs that their continued failure to adequately participate in the discovery process could lead to dismissal of their claims. The Court Ordered the named Pro Se Plaintiffs to show cause on or before June 4, 2020, as to why sanctions should not be issued against them. To date, over three months later, no response has been filed.

Strangely, on June 2, 2020, the named Pro Se Plaintiffs filed with the Court two broad requests for written discovery, purportedly directed at Defendant Matthews. On June 8, Defendant Matthews filed a Notice of Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Non-Compliance with the Order to Show Cause. [DE 646]. On August 24, 2020, the named Pro Se Plaintiffs filed with the Court a “Notice” which contains extensive and rambling argument directed to Defendants PNC Bank and Ruben Ramirez. [DE 697]. The notice does not address the discovery propounded upon them by Defendant Matthews, nor does it address any of this Court's prior discovery orders, including the Order to Show Cause. Id. In fact, to date, no response to the Second Order to Show Cause has been filed by the named Pro Se Plaintiffs.

ANALYSIS

Defendant Matthews has requested that sanctions be entered against the named Pro Se Plaintiffs. The Court has “broad discretion” in employing the sanctions set forth in Rule 37(b)(2). Edward Lewis Tobinick, MD v. Novella, 848 F.3d 935, 949 (11th Cir. 2017). “If a pro se litigant ignores a discovery order, he is and should be subject to sanctions like any other litigant.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) states in part that, if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” the court where the action is pending “may issue further orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. These orders may include the following: directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; striking pleadings in whole or in part; staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; or treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i-vii).

*3 While district courts have wide discretion to determine when sanctions are appropriate during the discovery process, “a district court may only impose a severe sanction, such as dismissal of an action, when it has been established that the offending party's failure to comply with its discovery obligations is due to the party's willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Kendall Lakes Towers Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Pacific Ins., No. 10–24310–CIV, 2011 WL 6190160, at 4* (S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2011). Dismissal is not appropriate when the party has failed to comply with its discovery obligations due to negligence, misunderstanding, or the inability to comply. Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993). The justifications for dismissal as a sanction are to punish the offending party, to deter similar conduct in future cases by other parties, to compel discovery, and to compensate the court and moving party for the added expenses of the discovery abuses. Wouters v. Martin Cty., Florida, 9 F.3d 924, 933 (11th Cir. 1993).

The severe sanctions permitted by Rule 37(b) are usually only imposed by district courts upon a finding “(1) that the party's failure to comply with the order was willful or a result of bad faith, (2) the party seeking sanctions was prejudiced by the violation, and (3) a lesser sanction would fail to adequately punish and be inadequate to ensure compliance with court orders.” Pacific Ins., 2011 WL 6190160, at *5; Taylor v. Bradshaw et al., No. 11-80911-CIV-Marra/Matthewman, 2015 WL 11256306, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2015), report and recommendation adopted as modified, No. 11-80911-CIV, 2015 WL 11254712 (S.D. Fla. May 11, 2015), aff'd sub nom. Taylor v. Bradshaw et al., No. 15-15027, 2018 WL 3414344 (11th Cir. 2018).

“Dismissal of a case with prejudice is considered ‘an extreme sanction that may be properly imposed only when: (1) a party engages in a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice.’ ” Warner v. Tinder, Inc., 675 F. App'x 945, 946 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2005)). “Findings satisfying both prongs of [this] standard are essential before dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.” Id. (quoting Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1339)). “In contrast, dismissal without prejudice generally does not constitute an abuse of discretion, even for a single, relatively minor procedural violation, because the affected party may re-file his or her action.” Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App'x 912, 914 (11th Cir. 2011).

a. Whether the Named Pro Se Plaintiffs have Engaged in a Clear Pattern of Delay or Willful Contempt

The Court finds that the named Pro Se Plaintiffs have engaged in a clear pattern of delay and willful contempt. As discussed above, these Plaintiffs are subject to an Order from February 19, 2020, compelling them to respond to discovery. [DE 584]. There is no indication that they have even minimally complied with this Order over the last seven months. Additionally, no response has been filed to either of the two Orders to Show Cause. In effect, the named Plaintiffs are ignoring Court orders and delaying and frustrating this proceeding. It was Plaintiffs who filed their claims in this court, and they have a duty to comply with court orders and rules. They have failed to do so in this case.

Defendant Matthews has been prejudiced by having to repeatedly ask this Court to compel the named Pro Se Plaintiffs to cooperate with the discovery process and produce discovery. The Court has reviewed the communications between Ms. Liu and defense counsel, in which Ms. Liu took numerous conflicting and confusing positions on behalf of the named Pro Se Plaintiffs. The Court finds that they represent a continued strategy of evasion and dilatory behavior on the part of the Pro Se Plaintiffs. Defendant Matthews was and is prejudiced by having to litigate in such a confusing, contradictory, and uncertain climate.

*4 On one hand, Ms. Liu took the position that the Pro Se Plaintiffs would withdraw their claims against Defendant Matthews. On the other hand, the named Pro Se Plaintiffs took the ridiculous step of filing, on the Court's public docket, two extremely broad requests for written discovery directed at him, when they had refused to comply with their discovery obligations and this Court's orders. The Court finds that this conduct clearly demonstrates a pattern of delay and willful contempt of this Court's discovery rules and orders. The Court finds that the Pro Se Plaintiffs are acting in bad faith, in a contumacious and dilatory manner.

b. Whether Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice

The Court must determine the nature of the sanctions that should be imposed. This Court does not like having to impose the extreme sanction of dismissal. It is a severe sanction and one that this Court only imposes as a last resort. That point has now arrived.

Having considered all of the filings in this case, the Court finds that the named Pro Se Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Matthews should be dismissed under Rule 37, for failing to provide discovery, and engaging in a pattern of bad faith conduct in a contumacious manner. The Court does not make this decision lightly. However, the facts before the Court dictate that the extreme sanction of dismissal should be imposed here. The Court finds a clear record of willful misconduct. The Court also finds bad faith. As discussed above, there is a clear pattern of delay and willful contempt by the named Pro Se Plaintiffs of their discovery obligations and the Court's Orders. The Court also finds that dismissal of the named Pro Se Plaintiffs’ claims solely as to Defendant Matthews is the least severe sanction that will remedy the named Pro Se Plaintiffs’ bad faith conduct in the present case.

The Court has contemplated lesser sanctions and concludes that none would suffice. The Court has issued numerous orders directed to the Pro Se Plaintiffs. They have not even minimally complied with a single one of these orders. By the same token, the Orders to Show Cause have been extremely clear, and no response to either has been issued to date.

The degree of the named Pro Se Plaintiffs’ noncompliance with Court orders rises to the level of that which prompted dismissal with prejudice in Taylor v. Bradshaw, 742 F. App'x 427 (11th Cir. 2018). In that case, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's decision to issue this sanction where more than nine months of non-compliance had elapsed since the issuance of interrogatories. Id. As is the case with the named Pro Se Plaintiffs, the Court in Taylor warned the plaintiff several times that failure to follow the Court's orders could result in dismissal. Id. The Court found that lesser sanctions would not suffice and dismissed the action with prejudice. Id.

Accordingly, the Court finds that lesser sanctions will not suffice, as the named Pro Se Plaintiffs have demonstrated over the last nine months that they do not intend to participate in discovery in good faith.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that the Honorable United States District Judge Kenneth Marra dismiss the claims of BAOPING LIU, CHANGYU LIU, DAQIN WENG, FENG GUO, LI ZHANG, LING LI, LIYAN FENG, MIN CUI, QINGYUN YU, RUJI LI, SHAOPING HUANG, SHAOQING ZENG, TINGTING SUN, TONGHUI LUAN, ZIAO SUN, XIAOPING ZHANG, YAWEN LI, YI ZHAO, YINGJUN YANG, and ZHEN YU (the named Pro Se Plaintiffs) asserted against Defendant Gerry Matthews, pursuant to Rule 37.

In so recommending, the undersigned has found that the named Pro Se Plaintiffs’ conduct has risen to such a level that a District Court would be acting within its discretion to dismiss these claims with prejudice. However, out of an abundance of caution, with the consideration that the named Pro Se Plaintiffs are just that—numerous pro se parties—and are mostly living in China, which has been greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the undersigned declines to recommend that the dismissal be with prejudice. Instead, the undersigned leaves that matter—whether to dismiss the claims with or without prejudice—up to the sound discretion of the District Judge.

*5 The Court also DIRECTS that Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel shall email a copy of this Order to the named Pro Se Plaintiffs if they have an email address for such parties.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the named Pro Se Plaintiffs.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

A party shall file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable United States District Judge Kenneth Marra within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to object to this Report and Recommendation within that time period waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 11th Cir.R. 3-1.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 8th day of September, 2020.