Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. Golf Car Depot Holdings, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 4:24-CV-10090-GAYLES/SHAW-WILDER
MESA UNDERWRITERS SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOLF CAR DEPOT HOLDINGS, LLC,
JANELLE L. GARBER, individually,
DAVID R. GARBER, JR., individually, and
DAVID R. GARBER, JR., as Guardian of the
Person for JANELLE L. GARBER,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Detra Shaw-Wilder (the “Report”). [ECF No. 54]. On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff Mesa
Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company (“MUSIC”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
[ECF No. 22]. On August 1, 2025, Defendants Janelle L. Garber and David R. Garber, Jr.,
individually and on Mrs. Garber’s behalf as guardian of her person (collectively, the “Garbers”),
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 37]. The Court referred the case to Judge Shaw-
Wilder for a ruling on all pretrial non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all
dispositive matters, including the Motions for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 43]. On January 5,
2026, Judge Shaw-Wilder issued her Report, recommending that MUSIC’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted, and the Garbers’ Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. [ECF No. 54].
No party filed objections, and the Garbers filed a Notice of Non-Objection to the Report. [ECF
No. 60].
______________________________/
Case 4:24-cv-10090-DPG Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
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,
784 (11th Cir. 2006). Given that the parties have not 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 findings and conclusion that MUSIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be
granted and that the Garbers’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) 	The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 54], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 22], is GRANTED;
(3) 	Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 37]; is DENIED.
(4) 	This case is CLOSED.
(5) 	Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, final judgment shall be awarded by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 5th day of February, 2026.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-10090-DPG Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2026 Page 2 of 2