Full Harvest Technologies, Inc. v. Mayan Farmers Produce, LLC, et al

S.D. Texas

Full Harvest Technologies, Inc. v. Mayan Farmers Produce, LLC, et al

DecidedNovember 7, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00223

StatusUnknown

This text of Full Harvest Technologies, Inc. v. Mayan Farmers Produce, LLC, et al (Full Harvest Technologies, Inc. v. Mayan Farmers Produce, LLC, et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Full Harvest Technologies, Inc. v. Mayan Farmers Produce, LLC, et al, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 07, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION FULL HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES, § INC., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-00223 § MAYAN FARMERS PRODUCE, LLC, § et al, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the court is the September 18, 2025, Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker. (Dkt. No. 86). Judge Hacker made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendants Rogelio De Leon and Hermila De Leon’s Rule 55(c) Motions, (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47), be GRANTED, and that the defaults entered against them, (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38), be SET ASIDE pursuant to Rule 55(c). Judge Hacker further recommended that Plaintiff Full Harvest’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 40), against Defendant Rogelio De Leon be DENIED as MOOT. The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No party filed an objection. As a result, review is straightforward: plain error. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005). No plain error appears. Accordingly, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that: (1) Judge Hacker’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 86), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; (2) Defendants Rogelio De Leon and Hermila De Leon’s Rule 55(c) Motions, (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47), is GRANTED; (3) The defaults entered against Defendants Rogelio De Leon and Hermila De Leon, (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38), are SET ASIDE pursuant to Rule 55(c); and (4) Plaintiff Full Harvest’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 40), is DENIED as MOOT. It is SO ORDERED. Signed on November 7, 2025.

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 07, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION FULL HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES, § INC., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-00223 § MAYAN FARMERS PRODUCE, LLC, § et al, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the court is the September 18, 2025, Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker. (Dkt. No. 86). Judge Hacker made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendants Rogelio De Leon and Hermila De Leon’s Rule 55(c) Motions, (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47), be GRANTED, and that the defaults entered against them, (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38), be SET ASIDE pursuant to Rule 55(c). Judge Hacker further recommended that Plaintiff Full Harvest’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 40), against Defendant Rogelio De Leon be DENIED as MOOT. The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No party filed an objection. As a result, review is straightforward: plain error. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005). No plain error appears. Accordingly, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that: (1) Judge Hacker’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 86), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; (2) Defendants Rogelio De Leon and Hermila De Leon’s Rule 55(c) Motions, (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47), is GRANTED; (3) The defaults entered against Defendants Rogelio De Leon and Hermila De Leon, (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38), are SET ASIDE pursuant to Rule 55(c); and (4) Plaintiff Full Harvest’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 40), is DENIED as MOOT. It is SO ORDERED. Signed on November 7, 2025.

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Full Harvest Technologies, Inc. v. Mayan Farmers Produce, LLC, et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/full-harvest-technologies-inc-v-mayan-farmers-produce-llc-et-al-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack