TIGI Linea Corp. v. Professional Products Group, LLC

E.D. Texas

TIGI Linea Corp. v. Professional Products Group, LLC

DecidedJune 12, 2020

Docket4:19-cv-00840

StatusUnknown

This text of TIGI Linea Corp. v. Professional Products Group, LLC (TIGI Linea Corp. v. Professional Products Group, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

TIGI Linea Corp. v. Professional Products Group, LLC, (E.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

TIGI LINEA CORP., § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-00840-RWS-KPJ Plaintiff, §

§ v. §

§ PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS GROUP, § LLC, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Professional Products Group, LLC (“PPG”) filed an Amended Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Docket No. 13. The Court previously referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 77), recommending the motion be denied because PPG failed to demonstrate a substantial threat of irreparable harm. Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, they are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the motion and the Magistrate Judge’s report and agrees with the report. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge watrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (Docket No. 77) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. PPG’s Amended Expedited Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 13) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of June, 2020.

Joohar f LU? febrry ectee Geo | ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

TIGI LINEA CORP., § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-00840-RWS-KPJ Plaintiff, §

§ v. §

§ PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS GROUP, § LLC, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Professional Products Group, LLC (“PPG”) filed an Amended Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Docket No. 13. The Court previously referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 77), recommending the motion be denied because PPG failed to demonstrate a substantial threat of irreparable harm. Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, they are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the motion and the Magistrate Judge’s report and agrees with the report. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge watrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (Docket No. 77) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. PPG’s Amended Expedited Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 13) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of June, 2020.

Joohar f LU? febrry ectee Geo | ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

TIGI Linea Corp. v. Professional Products Group, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tigi-linea-corp-v-professional-products-group-llc-txed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack