Jannetti et al v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-cv-21176-DPG
DAVID JANNETTI, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & CO., INC.,
Respondent.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez’s Report
and Recommendation on Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Petitioners’
Cross-Motion for Post-Award Prejudgment Interest and Sanctions (the “Report”). [ECF No. 55].
On May 16, 2025, Respondent filed its Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (“Respondent’s
Motion”). [ECF No. 27]. On August 4, 2025, Petitioners filed their Cross-Motion for Post-Award
Prejudgment Interest and Sanctions (“Petitioners’ Cross-Motion”). [ECF No. 39 at 62–63]. The
Court referred both Motions to Judge Sanchez for a report and recommendation. [ECF Nos. 43
and 55].
On February 6, 2026, Judge Sanchez issued his Report recommending that Respondent’s
Motion be denied; that the underlying Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, [ECF No. 1], be
granted; and that Petitioners’ Cross-Motion be granted in part and denied in part. Respondent filed
objections to the Report, [ECF No. 56], to which Petitioners filed a response, [ECF No. 60].
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
______________________________/
Case 1:25-cv-21176-DPG Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
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). After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge
Sanchez’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusions that Respondent’s Motion be denied; that the
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award be granted; and that Petitioners’ Cross-Motion be granted
in part and denied in part.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) 	The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 55], is ADOPTED in full.
(2) 	The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, [ECF No. 1], is GRANTED.
(3) 	Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award, [ECF No. 27], is DENIED.
(4) 	Petitioners’ Cross-Motion for Post-Award Prejudgment Interest and Sanctions,
[ECF No. 39 at 62–63], is GRANTED as to the request for prejudgment interest
and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.
(5) 	This Case is CLOSED for administrative purposes.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of March, 2026.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-21176-DPG Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2026 Page 2 of 2