Chanel, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule \A\""
Chanel, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule \A\""
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CIV-62121-RAR
CHANEL, INC.,
Plaintiff, v.
HANDBAGSTORE, et al.,
Defendants. /
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 66], filed on June 30, 2021. The Report recommends that the Court deny or strike the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 45] filed by Chen Xue Cai (“Filer Cai”) purportedly as “the operator of Best Fashion Gifts and Trulym,” two of the Defendants in this case. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith,
855 F.2d 736, 738(11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright,
677 F.2d 404, 410(Sth Cir. 1982)). Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 66] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Chen Xue Cai’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 45] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 19th day of July, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss
Page 2 of 2
Reference
- Status
- Unknown