LIFECELL IP HOLDINGS, LLC

v.

COSMEDIQUE, LLC

and SOUTH BEACH SKIN CARE, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. COSMEDIQUE, LLC, GLOBAL MEDIA GROUP, LLC, VYACHESLAV BORODIN, and JOHN DOES 1–5,

Defendants. __________________________________________________/

VYACHESLAV BORODIN, COSMEDIQUE LLC, and GLOBAL MEDIA GROUP, LLC,

Counterclaim Plaintiffs,

v. SOUTH BEACH SKIN CARE, INC. and LIFECELL IP HOLDINGS, LLC,

Counterclaim Defendants. __________________________________________________/

VYACHESLAV BORODIN, COSMEDIQUE LLC, and GLOBAL MEDIA GROUP, LLC,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v. CHRIS SUAREZ,

Third-Party Defendant. _______________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 258]. The Report recommends that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Vyacheslav Borodin [ECF No. 202] (“Borodin’s Motion”) be denied and that the Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by South Beach Skin Care, Inc., Lifecell IP Holdings, LLC, and Chris Suarez [ECF No. 204] (“SBSC’s, Lifecell’s, and Suarez’s Joint Motion”) be granted in part and denied in part. See Report at 2-3. On June 21, 2021, Borodin, Cosmedique LLC, and Global Media Group, LLC (“Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs”) timely filed Objections to the Report (“Objection”) [ECF No. 264]. On July 2, 2021, SBSC and Lifecell (“Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants”) and Third-Party

Suarez timely filed their Joint Response to the Objection (“Response”) [ECF No. 266]. The Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 258] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED as explained herein.

LEGAL STANDARD

This Court reviews de novo the determination of any disputed portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report. United States v. Powell, 628 F. 3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010). Any portions of the Report to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A proper objection “identifie[s] specific findings set forth in the [Report] and articulate[s] a legal ground for objection.” Leatherwood v. Anna’s Linens Co., 384 F. App’x 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2010) (alterations and emphasis added; citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Becerra’s Report and Defendants’/Counter-Plaintiffs’ Objection thereto, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the Report. The Court agrees with Judge Becerra’s detailed and well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Report thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the Objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs’ Objection [ECF No. 264] is OVERRULED. 2. The Report [ECF No. 258] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 3. Borodin’s Motion [ECF No. 202] is DENIED. 4. SBSC’s, Lifecell’s, and Suarez’s Joint Motion [ECF No. 204] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. GRANTED as to Counts I, II, and [I of Defendants’/Counter-Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Counterclaim [ECF No. 189]; b. GRANTED as to Counts I and II of Defendants’/Counter-Plaintiffs’ Third- Party Complaint Against Suarez [ECF No. 189]; and c. DENIED as to Count II of Lifecell and SBSC’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 30). 5, Further, Count III of the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 30] is hereby DISMISSED for lack of standing and SBSC’s, Lifecell’s, and Suarez’s Joint Motion as to the same is DENIED

AS MOOT.

6. Lastly, this matter is STAYED for forty-five (45) days upon the entry of this Order to permit the parties to engage in mediation. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 19th day of July, 2021.

RODOLFO A. RUIZ I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE