Mastronardi Produce Limited v. NS Brands, Ltd.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION MASTRONARDI PRODUCE LIMITED, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-CV-407-FB § NS BRANDS, LTD., § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-captioned cause on August 28, 2025 (docket #70). According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation was electronically transmitted to all but two of the parties on August 28, 2025, and was transmitted by other means to the remaining parties. To date, the docket reflects no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Adopt Report and Recommendation Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed on October 30, 2025 (docket #139). In the Report, United States Magistrate Judge Chestney recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (docket #20) be denied. Plaintiff asks, in its Motion to Adopt Report and Recommendation, that the Court adopt the Recommendation and order the Defendant to file its answer to the Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the Court’s order 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party's last known address, “service is complete upon mailing .” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is made by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). When the mode of service is by electronic means, three days are no longer added to the time period to act after being served. See Heverling v. McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals, Co., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1433, 2018 WL 1293304 at *2 n.3 (M.D. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A). The Court finds that the recommendation and the motion have merit and shall be accepted and granted as set forth below. Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (docket #20) shall be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on August 28, 2025 (docket #70), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (docket #20) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Adopt Report and Recommendation Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (docket #139) is GRANTED such that Defendant shall file its answer to the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A). It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 4th day of November, 2025.

“ iter C a FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-