MCM Entertainment, Inc. v. Diaz World Trade Group, Inc ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 22-cv-23189-GAYLES/TORRES MCM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MARIA CLAUDIA MOLINA, and LUNAMAR WELLNESS GROUP, LLC., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. DIAZ WORLD TRADE GROUP, INC. and MARCO DIAZ, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. ___________________________________/ ORDER 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, non- dispositive 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, itis 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