Yel Co. Insurance v. Truist Financial Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:25-cv-22365-DPG
YEL CO. INSURANCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRUIST BANK,
Defendant.
________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Amended Report and Recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Detra Shaw-Wilder (the “Report”), [ECF No. 43], on Defendant Truist Bank’s
(“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (“Motion”), [ECF No. 21]. On October 31,
2025, Plaintiff Yel Co. Insurance (“Plaintiff”) filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
[ECF No. 33]. On November 7, 2025, Defendant filed its Reply. [ECF No. 35]. On February 19,
2026, Judge Shaw-Wilder issued her Report recommending that Defendant’s Motion be denied,
[ECF No. 43]. Neither party objected to the Report.
A 	district 	court 	may 	accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation
are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party
disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made
are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,
199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781,
Case 1:25-cv-22365-DPG Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2026 Page 1 of 2

784 (11th Cir. 2006). Because neither party has objected to any portion of the Report, the Court
reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Shaw-
Wilder’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 21], should be
denied.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) 	The Amended Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 43], is ADOPTED in full.
(2) 	Defendant Truist Bank’s (“Defendant”) Motion, [ECF No. 21], is DENIED.1
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of March 2026.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 In Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion, it sought leave to amend if the Court were to grant
Defendant’s Motion. [ECF No. 33]. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend because it is moot and “it
is improper to embed a motion within a response to a motion.” Roberto v. Addison Place Apartments Prop. Owner
LLC, No. 0:23-CV-61579, 2024 WL 5215239, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2024) (internal citation omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-22365-DPG Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2026 Page 2 of 2