ME Technology, Inc. v. Brownstein

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided December 7, 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 REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff ME Technology, Inc. d/b/a CAA USA (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion for Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction [DE 41], filed September 28, 2020; Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Damages [DE 50], filed October 21, 2020; and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow (the “Report”) [DE 55], dated November 13, 2020. On October 15, 2020, the Court granted the Motion for Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction [DE 41] and referred only the damages portion of Magistrate Judge Snow, who requested separate briefing as to the determination of damages. See [DE’s 47, 49, 50]. Judge Snow held an evidentiary hearing on the Motions on November 5, 2020 and issued a Report and Recommendation on November 13, 2020. See [DE’s 53, 55]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 55] have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 55] 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 55] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusion that the Plaintiff's Motions [DE’s 41, 50] Plaintiffs Motion should be granted and that Plaintiff should be awarded damages in the amount of $290,000 against Defendant Elliot Brownstein consistent with the Report. Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 55] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Motions [DE’s 41, 50] are hereby GRANTED. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court shall enter a separate final judgment. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Defendant Elliot Brownstein at the address below. DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 7th day of December, 2020.

f } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f etna i ye Zo #4 v Paty d ‘4 ase □□ CA KY A AVIVA □ Mf 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)