Jetchill Ltd. v. Shenzhen Jiarui Minghui Trading Co., Ltd and Explonova Store

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 1:25-cv-23377-LEIBOWITZ/LOUIS

JETCHILL LTD., Plaintiff,

v.

SHENZHEN JIARUI MINGHUI TRADING CO., LTD and EXPLONOVA STORE, Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis for a report and recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 21], Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve TRO [ECF No. 22], and Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend TRO [ECF No. 24] (collectively, the “Motions”). [See ECF No. 34]. Judge Louis has now issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve TRO [ECF No. 22] be DENIED as moot; and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend TRO [ECF No. 24] be DENIED.1 [ECF No. 52 at 11]. No objections to the R&R were filed during the objection period. After careful review of the R&R, the Motions, the parties’ papers, the record, and the governing law, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 52]. LEGAL STANDARD After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must

1 Judge Louis has scheduled an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction for October 23, 2025. [See ECF No. 49]. conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de nove, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). ‘To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem. Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)). CONCLUSION In the absence of any objection to the R&R, the Court’s own review finds no error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 52] is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED and fully incorporated into this Order for all purposes. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve TRO [ECF No. 22] is DENIED as moot. 3. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend TRO [ECF No. 24] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on October 21, 2025. □ ee oO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record