JETCHILL LTD.
v.
SHENZHEN JIARUI MINGHUI TRADING CO., LTD AND EXPLONOVA STORE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation denying the plaintiff's motion to extend a temporary restraining order (TRO) and denying as moot the defendant's motion to dissolve the TRO in this trade dispute between Jetchill Ltd. and Shenzhen Jiarui Minghui Trading Co., Ltd.
The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted, that the defendant's motion to dissolve the TRO be denied as moot and the plaintiff's motion to extend the TRO be denied.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's legal conclusions, even in the absence of an objection.
[2] A district court reviews factual findings for clear error when no timely and specific objection is filed with respect to those findings.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.”
Establishes the legal standard for district court review of magistrate judge reports
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Jetchill Ltd. sought a preliminary injunction against defendants Shenzhen Jiarui Minghui Trading Co., Ltd. and Explonova Store. A temporary …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis for a report and recommendation on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 21], Defendant's Motion to Dissolve TRO [ECF No. 22], and Plaintiff's Motion to Extend TRO [ECF No. 24] (collectively, the “Motions”). [See ECF No. 34]. Judge Louis has now issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that (1) Defendant's Motion to Dissolve TRO [ECF No. 22] be DENIED as moot; and (2) Plaintiffs Motion to Extend TRO [ECF No. 24] be DENIED. [ECF No. 52 at 11]. No objections to the R&R were filed during the objection period. After careful review of the R&R, the Motions, the parties' papers, the record, and the governing law, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 52].
LEGAL STANDARD
After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must
1
conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem. Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)).
CONCLUSION
In the absence of any objection to the R&R, the Court's own review finds no error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 52] is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED and fully incorporated into this Order for all purposes.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dissolve TRO [ECF No. 22] is DENIED as moot.
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend TRO [ECF No. 24] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on October 21, 2025.
cc: counsel of record
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
[fn 1]: Judge Louis has scheduled an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction for October 23, 2025. [See ECF No. 49].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)