HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS LTD. v. NINGBO AO SHENG MOLD CO., LTD. d/b/a AOSIMI

E.D. Texas

HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS LTD. v. NINGBO AO SHENG MOLD CO., LTD. d/b/a AOSIMI

DecidedSeptember 16, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00348

StatusUnknown

This text of HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS LTD. v. NINGBO AO SHENG MOLD CO., LTD. d/b/a AOSIMI (HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS LTD. v. NINGBO AO SHENG MOLD CO., LTD. d/b/a AOSIMI) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS LTD. v. NINGBO AO SHENG MOLD CO., LTD. d/b/a AOSIMI, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING § SYSTEMS LTD., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-348-RWS-RSP § NINGBO AO SHENG MOLD CO., LTD. § d/b/a AOSIMI, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.’s Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction. Docket No. 43. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 44), recommending Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and permanent injunction be granted. To date, no objections have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 44) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.’s Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Docket No. 43) is GRANTED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of September, 2025.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING § SYSTEMS LTD., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-348-RWS-RSP § NINGBO AO SHENG MOLD CO., LTD. § d/b/a AOSIMI, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.’s Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction. Docket No. 43. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 44), recommending Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and permanent injunction be granted. To date, no objections have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 44) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.’s Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Docket No. 43) is GRANTED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of September, 2025.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS LTD. v. NINGBO AO SHENG MOLD CO., LTD. d/b/a AOSIMI, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/husky-injection-molding-systems-ltd-v-ningbo-ao-sheng-mold-co-ltd-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack