MCM ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
v.
DIAZ WORLD TRADE GROUP, INC
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.
In this commercial dispute in the Southern District of Florida, the court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding competing motions to strike defenses and dismiss counterclaims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike certain affirmative defenses, while granting without prejudice the motion to dismiss all counterclaims.
The court granted the motion to strike with respect to defenses numbered 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 16, and denied it with respect to defenses numbered 8 and 9. The court granted the motion to dismiss all counterclaims without prejudice.
[1] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report to which objections are made de novo, provided the objections pinpoint specific disagreements.
[2] Unobjected-to portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are reviewed by the district court only for clear error.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMCM Entertainment, Inc., Maria Claudia Molina, and Lunamar Wellness Group, LLC. sued Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. and Marco Diaz. The defendants asser…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants MCM Entertainment, Inc., Maria Claudia Molina, and Lunamar Wellness Group, LLC's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Elements of Defendants” “Statement of Defenses,” (“Motion to Strike") [ECF No. 86], and Counter-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counter-Plaintiffs' Second Amended Counterclaims (“Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 89]. The action was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 118].
On January 30, 2024, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion to Strike be granted in part and denied in part and that the Motion to Dismiss be granted (the “Report”). [ECF No. 167]. Defendants timely filed their objections the Report on February 13, 2024. [ECF No. 175].
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 objection is 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). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to all counterclaims and that the Motion to Strike be granted with respect to Defense Numbers 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 16 and denied with respect to Defense Numbers 8, and 9. [ECF No. 167 at 21]. Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Torres's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion to Strike should be granted in part and denied in part and that the Motion to Dismiss should be granted in full.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Torres's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 167], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Elements of Defendants' "Statement of Defenses” [ECF No. 86] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
(3) Counter-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counter-Plaintiffs' Second Amended Counterclaims [ECF No. 89] is GRANTED without prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of February, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)