ME TECHNOLOGY, INC.
v.
BROWNSTEIN
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 the plaintiff's motions for final default judgment, permanent injunction, and damages.
Plaintiff filed motions for default judgment, injunction, and damages. The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing and issued a report recommendi…
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 Determination Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff ME Technology, Inc. d/b/a CAA USA (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion for Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction [DE 41], filed September 28, 2020; Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Damages [DE 50], filed October 21, 2020; and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow (the “Report”) [DE 55], dated November 13, 2020.
On October 15, 2020, the Court granted the Motion for Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction [DE 41] and referred only the damages portion of Magistrate Judge Snow, who requested separate briefing as to the determination of damages. See [DE’s 47, 49, 50]. Judge Snow held an evidentiary hearing on the Motions on November 5, 2020 and issued a Report and Recommendation on November 13, 2020. See [DE’s 53, 55]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 55] have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 55] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 55] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusion that the Plaintiff's Motions [DE’s 41, 50] Plaintiffs Motion should be granted and that Plaintiff should be awarded damages in the amount of $290,000 against Defendant Elliot Brownstein consistent with the Report.
Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 55] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Motions [DE’s 41, 50] are hereby GRANTED.
3.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court shall enter a separate final judgment.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Defendant Elliot Brownstein at the address below. DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 7th day of December, 2020.
f } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f etna i ye Zo #4 v Paty d ‘4 ase [...] CA KY A AVIVA Mf
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record Elliot Brownstein 1189 Lake Victoria Drive, Apt. 1 West Palm Beach, FL 33411
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)