ME Technology, Inc. v. Brownstein

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided September 29, 2020·No. 0:20-cv-61508·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61508-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

ME TECHNOLOGY INC. d/b/a CAA USA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ELLIOT BROWNSTEIN,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; DENYING EXPEDITED MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff ME Technology, Inc. d/b/a CAA USA’s Expedited Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction and for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Elliot Brownstein Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court, filed on August 21, 2020 [DE 20] (the “Motion”) and the September 14, 2020 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow (the “Report”) [DE 37]. Judge Snow held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion on September 3, 2020. See [DE’s 32, 34, 35]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 37] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 37] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 37] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 37] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff ME Technology, Inc. d/b/a CAA USA’s Expedited Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction and for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Elliot Brownstein Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court [DE 20] is hereby DENIED; 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Defendant Elliot Brownstein at the address below. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, on this 29th day of September, 2020. f } “a 4 : “t jf f ? f "eee if Zo #4 v Paty d ‘4 ase □□ fe a VAY “2, A (Ma VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record Elliot Brownstein 1189 Lake Victoria Drive, Apt. 1 West Palm Beach, FL 33411

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

ME Technology, Inc. v. Brownstein, (S.D. Fla. 2020).

ME Technology, Inc. v. Brownstein (ME Technology, Inc. v. Brownstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniel Loconte v. Richard Dugger, Robert A. Butterworth
847 F.2d 745 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Resolution Trust Corporation v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.
996 F.2d 1144 (Eleventh Circuit, 1993)