Herssein v. AGA Service Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-60256-CIV-SMITH
REUVEN T. HERSSEIN, on behalf of
himself, the general public, and those
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AGA SERVICES COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
[DE 91] on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 33] and Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 92]. 	In his
thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation [DE 91], Magistrate Judge Hunt
recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 33] be GRANTED.
A 	district 	court 	may 	accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	Those portions of the report and recommendation to
which objections are made 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). However, a party’s objections are improper if they expand
upon and reframe arguments already made and considered by the magistrate judge, or simply
disagree with the magistrate judge’s conclusions. See Melillo v. United States, No. 17-CV-80489,
2018 WL 4258355, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2018); see also Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-
23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (“It is improper for an objecting
Case 0:25-cv-60256-RS Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
party to ... submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same
arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly,
parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to a R & R.”)
(quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382
(W.D.N.Y. 1992)).
In his Objections, Plaintiff argues that (1) the R&R shifts the burden to Plaintiff and
resolved factual questions in Defendants’ favor; (2) the magistrate judge errs in resolving legal
ambiguities against Plaintiff and holding that FUITPA bars Plaintiff’s common law fraud claim;
(3) the R&R errs in resolving disclosure adequacy against Plaintiff at the pleading stage; (4) the
R&R errs in recommending dismissal of Count II by resolving contract ambiguity and factual
disputes against Plaintiff.
Although framed as arguments that the Report and Recommendation applies the motion to
dismiss standard erroneously, the Court observes that Plaintiff’s objections are just attempts to
expand upon and reframe arguments already considered by Judge Hunt or disagreements with
Judge Hunt’s conclusions. Moreover, the Court finds that Judge Hunt did not apply the motion to
dismiss standard erroneously. Ultimately, the Court having considered Judge Hunt’s Report,
Defendants’ objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with
Judge Hunt’s well-reasoned analysis and his recommendations that the Motion to Dismiss be
granted and that the case be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
Case 0:25-cv-60256-RS Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
1. 	The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to District Judge [DE 91] is
AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court’s
Order.
2. 	Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 33] is GRANTED.
3. 	All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon are DENIED as moot.
4. 	This case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on this 11th day of March 2026.
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 0:25-cv-60256-RS Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2026 Page 3 of 3