ACCUFORM MANUFACTURING, INC.
v.
NATIONAL MARKER COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff Accuform Manufacturing, Inc. filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants National Marker Company, et al. filed an objection to t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bond Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 89), filed on January 13, 2020, recommending that Plaintiff Accuform Manufacturing, Inc.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 4) be granted in part. On January 27, 2020, Defendants National Marker Company, Bradford Montgomery, Peter Bloniarz, John Donati, and Rebecca Longo filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 94).
Accuform responded to the Objection on February 10, 2020. (Doc. # 100).
The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, overrules the Objection, and grants the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in part as set forth below. Discussion After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982).
If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992).
The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.
S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d
603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation as well as Defendants’ Objection thereto, the Court overrules the Objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Porcelli’s detailed and well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Report and Recommendation
thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the Objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 89) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Accuform’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 4) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that: (i) Defendants Montgomery, Bloniarz, and Longo are
enjoined for a period of eighteen months anywhere within the geographic United States from directly or indirectly soliciting, diverting, taking away, or interfering with Accuform’s customers identified in the sealed customer list (Doc. # 79); and (ii) All Defendants are enjoined from using or disclosing Accuform’s specially negotiated pricing and rebates. (3) Accuform shall post a bond in the amount of $275,000. (4) This preliminary injunction shall be held in full force and effect until further agreement of the parties or further order of the Court. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this lith day of February, 2020. fan fr. Munahy (noiyh VIR! IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)