MCM Entertainment, Inc. v. Diaz World Trade Group, Inc

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-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 Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Third Amended Counterclaims III, IV, and V (the “Report”) [ECF No. 284]. On July 29, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 272] be denied as to Counterclaims III and IV and granted as to Counterclaim V. [ECF No. 284]. On August 12, 2025, Plaintiffs timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 290]. On August 20, 2025, Defendants timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 293].1 A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation

1 Defendants requested an extension of time to file objections to the Report given defense counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney [ECF No. 287, 291]. The Court granted a 7-day extension of time for Defendants to file objections. [ECF No. 292]. 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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Report, the Motion to Dismiss, and the parties’ objections. The Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion to Dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part. Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 284], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 272], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Third Amended Counterclaim V and denied for Counterclaims III and IV.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 25th day of August 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIS T JUDGE