BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC.

v.

THE MONTGOMERY LAW FIRM, LLC

and BLUEGREEN VACATIONS CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE MONTGOMERY LAW FIRM, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes, United States Magistrate Judge, for a ruling on Defendant Montgomery & Newcomb LLC’s (“Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff” or “M&N Law”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Plaintiffs’ Sham Litigation (“Motion for Preliminary Injunction”), [ECF Nos. 114, 124]. After an evidentiary hearing on August 26, 2021, Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), [ECF No. 146], recommending that M&N Law’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. M&N Law timely filed Objections to the R&R, which is now ripe for disposition, [ECF No. 150].

I. Legal Standard

A preliminary injunction may be granted only if M&N Law can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered in the absence of an injunction; (3) the threatened injury to M&N Law outweighs any harm that an injunction may cause the Plaintiffs; and (4) if issued, the Trading, Inc., 51 F. 3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995); McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F. 3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries its burden of persuasion on each of these prerequisites.” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin, Co., 252 F. 3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir. 2001).

II. Discussion

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Transcript of the August 26th Motion Hearing, [ECF No. 147], and the issues presented in M&N Law’s Objections. After careful consideration, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’s conclusion that M&N Law fails to establish the requisite elements for injunctive relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Namely, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned conclusion that M&N Law has not established a likelihood of success on the merits of its Clayton Act Counterclaim pursuant to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and a lack of antitrust injury. In addition to those findings in the R&R, the Court additionally finds that M&N Law has not established irreparable harm.

“[T]he very idea of a preliminary injunction is premised on the need for speedy and urgent action to protect a [party’s] rights before a case can be resolved on its merits.” Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F. 3d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 2016). M&N Law’s failure to move for preliminary injunctive relief until six months to approximately a year-and-a-half into litigation belies an assertion of irreparable harm. Id. Finally, because M&N Law’s arguments regarding a stay of the case reflect those of its unmeritorious motion for injunctive relief, the Court finds that a stay is unwarranted. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is hereby: ORDERED AND ADJUDED that

1. United States Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 146], is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 2. M&N Law’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Plaintiffs’ Sham Litigation, [ECF No. 114], is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of September 2021.

Ce

JOSE/E. MARTINEZ

UNITVED STATES DISTRICFAUDGE

Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes All Counsel of Record