FOKISS, INC.
v.
TLM GLOBAL, LLC
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.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the defendants' motion to determine no irreparable harm before a preliminary injunction hearing.
Defendants filed a motion to bypass a preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing, arguing the plaintiff delayed seeking relief and could not prove irr…
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 Preliminary Injunction Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party
files "a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id.
Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
II. DISCUSSION
Magistrate Judge McCabe scheduled an evidentiary hearing to take place on May 22, 2024 on Plaintiff's request for entry of a preliminary injunction. See (ECF No. 29). In the instant Motion, Defendants seek to bypass the evidentiary hearing and have the Court rule on the papers. See generally (ECF No. 30). In support, Defendants argue that Plaintiff delayed seeking injunctive relief and therefore can no longer prove one of the mandatory prerequisites to injunctive relief, irreparable harm. See id. at 1-3.
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge McCabe recommends denying Defendants' Motion because: (1) the majority of cases cited by Defendants were decided after a full evidentiary hearing, see R&R at 2; (2) Defendants cite to only two cases that were decided without an evidentiary hearing, both of which are distinguishable from the present case, see id.; and (3) the motion for preliminary injunction presents complex factual and legal issues not easily resolved on the papers, see id. at 2–3.
The Court received no objections to the aforementioned findings in the R&R. See (ECF Nos. 38, 39). Upon a review of the record, the Court finds no clear error with Magistrate Judge McCabe's findings.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 37) is ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 1st day of May, 2024.
K. M. Moore
K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record
[fn 1]: The Court assumes the Parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which are set forth in the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge McCabe on April 23, 2024. (ECF No. 19).