# Estate of Claudia Rameshwar v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company

> District Court, M.D. Florida · July 24, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10105547

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** July 24, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10105547

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining “a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party’s argument when the argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

NANDALALL RAMESHWAR;
ARTHUR HOOKS HUMPHREY;
CONSUELA RENAE HOOKS; and
DOROTHY LISA HUMPHREY,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 6:18-cv-1597-Orl-37LRH

MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Defendant.
_____________________________________

ORDER
Defendant moved, unopposed, for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the
parties’ settlement and address Attorney George E. Ollinger III’s (“Ollinger”) pending
charging lien and retaining lien. (Doc. 66 (“Defendant’s Motion”).) And Ollinger seeks
to review the parties’ settlement agreement. (See Doc. 67 (“Ollinger’s Motion”).) On
referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie R. Hoffman recommends granting Defendant’s
Motion in part and denying Ollinger’s Motion. (Doc. 93 (“R&R”).) Ollinger objects to the
R&R. (Doc. 95.) Defendant responded and filed its own limited objection to the R&R.
(Doc. 96.) On review, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2018, Ollinger, on behalf of the Estate of Claudia Rameshwar, filed
this case in state court, which Defendant removed here. (Docs. 1, 2.) Plaintiffs Nandallal
Rameshwar, Arthur Hooks Humphrey, Consuela Renae Hooks, and Dorothy Lisa
Humphrey were added later in an amended complaint. (Docs. 15, 17.)

On November 20, 2018, Ollinger filed a notice of charging lien and notice of
retaining lien. (Docs. 30, 31.) Shortly after, Claudia Rameshwar notified Defendant that
Ollinger no longer represented Plaintiffs. (Docs. 39-1, 39-3.) Meanwhile, Ollinger sued
some Plaintiffs in state court. (Doc. 39-2.) On April 16, 2019, after a hearing before
Magistrate Judge Hoffman where Ollinger said he had not represented Plaintiffs for
several months, Ollinger was terminated as Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Doc. 51.) Plaintiffs

proceeded pro se and settled with Defendant after mediation on February 11, 2020. (Doc.
65.)
Defendant filed its Motion as the parties cannot complete their settlement due to
Ollinger’s pending liens. (Doc. 66.) Then Ollinger moved to see the settlement agreement.
(Doc. 67.) Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommends Defendant’s Motion be granted in

part, finding the liens unenforceable in these proceedings. (Doc. 93.) She also
recommends denying Ollinger’s Motion without prejudice. (Id.) With Ollinger and
Defendant’s objections (Docs. 95, 96), the matter is ripe.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, the district court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
made.” 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.” Id. When the
parties do not object, the Court examines the R&R only for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan 28, 2016);
see also Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

III. ANALYSIS
In a one-paragraph objection, Ollinger argues Magistrate Judge Hoffman is
“wrong on the facts and law” and should have applied Florida law. (Doc. 95.) Defendant
objects to the R&R to the extent it’s unclear regarding Defendant’s liability after it
concludes the settlement with Plaintiffs. (Doc. 96, pp. 2–3.) Let’s address each.
A. Ollinger’s Objection

Ollinger’s objection is woefully inadequate—failing to “specifically identify the
portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783 (quotation
omitted); (see Doc. 95). His objection isn’t “sufficiently specific” but rather a “general
objection to the report”—so it fails. See Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citation omitted). But
the Court will address Ollinger’s argument that the R&R “should have applied Florida

State law.” (Doc. 95.)
Ollinger doesn’t specify which portion of the R&R should have used Florida law
but in the sections reviewing the liens and disbursement of settlement proceeds,
Magistrate Judge Hoffman applied Florida law, so Ollinger’s objection does not apply.
(See Doc. 95; cf. Doc. 93, pp. 11–17, 18–19.) In determining supplemental jurisdiction over

the liens, Magistrate Judge Hoffman used federal law. (Doc. 93, pp. 10–11.) This was
appropriate. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378–81 (1994);
Cherry Grp., LLC v. D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P., No. 3:08-cv-222-J-34PDB,
2014 WL 12691591, at *6 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2014). And in analyzing Ollinger’s entitlement
to see the settlement, Magistrate Judge Hoffman reviewed the authority Ollinger cited,
which was all federal. (Doc. 93, pp. 17–18; Doc. 87, pp. 18–19.) It’s a stretch for Ollinger

to now argue Magistrate Judge Hoffman should have applied Florida law. See Williams v.
McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining “a district court has discretion to
decline to consider a party’s argument when the argument was not first presented to the
magistrate judge”). And the objection is unavailing—courts apply federal law when
determining the discovery of settlement agreements. See Virtual Studios, Inc. v. Royalty
Carpet Mills, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-0077-HLM, 2013 WL 12090122, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 23,

2013). Having reviewed each section of the R&R, the Court finds no error and overrules
Ollinger’s objection.
B. Defendant’s Objection
Defendant objects to the R&R to the extent its liability is unclear after the
disbursement of settlement proceeds to Plaintiffs—pointing to Magistrate Judge

Hoffman’s recommendation that Ollinger’s entitlement to fees may be addressed in a
separate action. (Doc. 96, pp. 2–3.) Defendant asks the Court to clarify Ollinger is
precluded from seeking relief against it regarding the liens. (Doc. 96, p. 3.) It seeks this
clarification because under its reading of Florida law, it may be labile to Ollinger after
disbursing settlement proceeds to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 66, p. 3; Doc. 96, p. 3 (citing Brown v.

Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., 614 So. 2d 574, 580–81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)).) But Defendant has
cited no authority the Court has the power to make such a determination. (See Doc. 96,
pp. 2–3.)
The Court has determined Ollinger’s liens are not enforceable in this proceeding,
but whether Ollinger sues Plaintiffs in a separate action for attorney’s fees to attempt to
hold Defendant liable for Plaintiffs’ fees, is beyond the Court’s purview. See Noblet v.

Ditchwitch Trencher of Fla., Inc., No. 6:01-cv-845-Orl-KRS, Doc. 56, pp. 1–2 (M.D. Fla. Oct.
10, 2002) (finding lien unenforceable and explaining dispute between the attorney and
the plaintiff can be addressed in separate action); Montpellier Farm, Ltd. v. Crane Envtl.,
Inc., No. 07-22815-CIV, 2009 WL 722238, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2009) (same); Scutieri v.
Estate of Revitz, 829 F. Supp. 387, 392 (S.D. Fla. 1993) (same). So Defendant’s objection is
overruled.

IV. CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the portions of the R&R objected to de novo and the rest for
clear error, the Court finds no error and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie R. Hoffman’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 93) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.
2. Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Court to Retain Jurisdiction to Enforce
Settlement and to Address the Pending Charging Lien and Retaining Lien
(Doc. 66) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:
a. Ollinger’s retaining lien (Doc. 31) and charging lien (Doc. 30) are not

enforceable in proceedings before this Court;
b. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED.
3. Ollinger’s Motion as Lienor to See Settlement Agreement, Release,
Mediation Agreement and Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 67) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Local Rule 3.08(b)
subject to the right of any party to move the court within sixty (60) days
thereafter for the purpose of entering a stipulated form of final order or
judgment; or, on good cause shown, to reopen the case for further
proceedings.
5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on July 23, 2020.

//]
GB) Litn
a “ROY B. DALTON JR:
United States District Judge

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-6-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10105547. Public record. Not legal advice.