Onemata Corporation v. Rahman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 0:20-cv-62002-WPD
ONEMATA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASHFAQ RAHMAN, an individual, et al.,
Defendants/Third-Party Defendants.
____________________________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the January 23, 2026 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R) of Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle [DE 951]; Onemata Corporation’s
Notice of Non-Objection [DE 952]; the Nevada Parties’ Partial Objections to the January 23,
2026 Report and Recommendation [DE 955]; the Foreign Third Parties’ Objection and Response
to Report and Recommendation to District Judge through Special and Limited Appearance [DE
956]; Ashfaq Rahman, Sabira Arefin and Rahman Arefin Living Trust’s Motion for Joinder with
DE956 [DE 957]; and Onemata’s Response to Nevada Parties’ Partial Objections to January 23,
2026 Report and Recommendation, Foreign Third Parties Objection and Response to Report and
Recommendation, and Ashfaq Rahman, Sabira Arefin and Rahmen Arefin Living Trust’s Motion
for Joinder [DE 958]. The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and is
otherwise fully advised in the premises.
A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United
States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the
portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 963 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2026 Page 1 of 3

specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be
sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784
(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific
objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de
novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at
783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x
at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and the Objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R [DE’s 955, 956, 957]. Having carefully considered the arguments
raised in the Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with Judge Valle’s
analysis and conclusions as set forth in the thorough R&R [DE 951].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [DE 951] is hereby APPROVED;
2. 	The Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R [DE’s 955, 956, 957] are
OVERRULED;
3. 	The record establishes complete diversity between Onemata, as Plaintiff, and the
Nevada Entities. Uncertainty remains, however, regarding the citizenship of CSB
and HomeLien, which requires the parties to undertake additional procedures to
determine whether complete diversity exists as to the Foreign LLCs;
4. 	CSB and HomeLien’s Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory [DE 941] is
GRANTED IN PART. The parties should meet and confer to file a Joint
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 963 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2026 Page 2 of 3

Application for Letters Rogatory directed to the Cook Islands courts.
5. 	Onemata’s Motion for Sanctions [DE 946] is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, on
this 23rd day of February, 2026.
Copies to:
Counsel of record
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 963 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2026 Page 3 of 3