Hoang v. Doral 888 LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 9:23-CV-80479-DSL
THANH M. HOANG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DORAL 888 LLC, et al,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
[ECF No. 131]
Defendant Kenny Tang filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Third MSJ”).
ECF No. 131. Plaintiff Thanh M. Hoang filed his Response in Opposition to the
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Response to MSJ”). ECF No. 135. Mr. Tang has
indicated that he will not be filing a Reply. ECF No. 139. The District Court referred
this matter to me for a Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 133. I have reviewed
the Third MSJ (ECF No. 131), Response to MSJ (ECF No. 135), Statement of Material
Facts in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 132), Statement of
Material Facts by Mr. Hoang (ECF No. 136), Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
(ECF No. 137), Defendant’s Notice Regarding Filing a Reply in Support of Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 139), Notice of Supplemental Authority from Mr. Tang (ECF No.
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2026 Page 1 of 6

2
140), Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Second MSJ”) (ECF No. 57), and
Omnibus Order Denying all Pending Motions and Referring this Matter to
Settlement Conference (“Omnibus Order”) (ECF No. 71). This matter is now ripe for
decision. For the reasons below, Mr. Tang’s Third MSJ (ECF No. 131) should be
DENIED without prejudice because it is procedurally improper.1
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Hoang filed his Complaint and demand for jury trial against Doral 888
LLC (“Doral 888”); Boca 888 LLC (“Boca 888”); and Mr. Tang (“Defendants”) on March
27, 2023. ECF No. 1. Doral 888 and Boca 888 filed an Answer with affirmative
defenses on May 8, 2023. ECF No. 12. On the same day, Mr. Tang filed a Motion to
Dismiss or, alternatively, a Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law (“First MSJ”). ECF No. 13. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hoang
petitioned the Court for leave to file an amended complaint, which was granted and
filed. ECF Nos. 27, 28, 30. The First MSJ was denied as moot. ECF No. 29.2
Defendants filed their Answers to the Amended Complaint that included affirmative
defenses. ECF Nos. 31, 32.
On September 5, 2023, Mr. Hoang filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment with Statement of Material Facts. ECF Nos. 53, 54, 55. Mr. Tang filed his
Second MSJ and Statement of Material Facts on the same day. ECF Nos. 56, 57. The
1 As the Third MSJ was improperly filed, I have not assessed its merits.
2 Because the First MSJ was denied as moot, it will not be addressed in the
analysis.
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2026 Page 2 of 6

3
parties filed Responses, Replies, and additional Statements of Material Facts to the
appropriate Motions. ECF Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68. Judge
Rosenberg filed the Omnibus Order denying all pending motions, including the cross
Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 71. Mr. Hoang filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on the Omnibus Order, which was subsequently denied, and the case
was reassigned to Judge Leibowitz. ECF Nos. 78, 79, 89. Later, default was entered
on Doral 888 and Boca 888. ECF Nos. 120, 123, 126, 127, 130.
Now, Mr. Tang has filed a his Third MSJ. ECF Nos. 131, 132. The parties have
responded and replied to the Third MSJ. ECF Nos. 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140. The
case is set for a jury trial on June 1, 2026. ECF No. 105.
II. MULTIPLE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILINGS
“The local rules allow a party one chance to file a motion for summary
judgment to dispose of the claims at issue” without the court’s prior permission.
Jeffrey O. v. City of Boca Raton, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2007); S. D.
Fla. L. R. 56.1(e). Pursuant to the Southern District of Florida Local Rule 56.1(e)
titled “Prohibition Against Multiple Motions for Summary Judgment”:
Filing and service of multiple motions for partial summary judgment is
prohibited, absent prior permission of the Court. This prohibition does
not preclude a party from filing both a motion for summary judgment
asserting an immunity from suit and a later motion for summary
judgment addressing any issues that may remain in the case. This
prohibition also is not triggered when, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(d), the Court elects to treat a motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b) or 12(c) as a summary judgment motion.
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2026 Page 3 of 6

4
S. D. Fla. L. R. 56.1(e). This Rule “affords the Court discretion to permit a party to file
multiple summary judgment motions despite the Rule's general prohibition against
doing so.” Bill v. Ypsilantis, No. 22-cv-61514, 2023 WL 8004718, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. Nov.
17, 2023).
III. ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 56.1(e), Mr. Tang cannot
file an additional Motion for Summary Judgment without first requesting leave from
the Court. Mr. Tang has not requested leave from the Court. The only exceptions to
requesting leave from the Court to file an additional Motion for Summary Judgment
would be (1) filing summary judgment regarding immunity from suit with a later
motion for summary judgment handling substantive case issues, or (2) “as permitted
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), the Court elects to treat a motion filed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b) or 12(c) as a summary judgment motion.” S. D. Fla. L. R. 56.1(e). Mr.
Tang does not meet either of these exceptions.
Mr. Tang’s Second MSJ was filed as a Motion for Summary Judgment—not
any other motion. The Second MSJ was based on the merits of his case for Counts I,
II, and IV of his Amended Complaint. ECF No. 57. Similarly, the Omnibus Order did
not state that the Court interpreted the Second MSJ as anything other than a Motion
for Summary Judgment.3 As a result, the Omnibus Order analyzed the Second MSJ
3 The Court’s Omnibus Order also addresses Mr. Tang’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings separately. ECF No. 71 at 3, 16.
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2026 Page 4 of 6

5
on its merits. See ECF No. 71 at 3-13. Finally, Mr. Tang does not provide any reason
as to why the Court should overlook this procedural violation. ECF Nos. 131, 140.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court Deny Mr.
Tang’s Third MSJ without prejudice to him seeking leave to have it considered on the
merits.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and
Recommendation with the Honorable David S. Leibowitz, United States District
Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of
being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file
objections shall constitute a waiver of a party's "right to challenge on appeal the
district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions." 11th Cir.
R. 3-1 (2016).
If counsel do not intend to file objections, they shall file a notice
advising the District Court within FIVE DAYS of this Report and
Recommendation.
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2026 Page 5 of 6

6
DONE and SUBMITTED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach
County, in the Southern District of Florida, this 27th day of February 2026.
__________________________________
BRUCE E. REINHART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2026 Page 6 of 6