Dish Network L.L.C. v. Fraifer et al

Filing 257

ORDER: Judge Tuite's January 31, 2020, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 246) is adopted and affirmed. "Plaintiff's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 146) is granted in part and denied in part. "Defendants ' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint" (Doc. 217) is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor, and against Defendants, on all counts of the amended counterclaim. (Doc. 104). See Order for details. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 3/30/2020. (ZRN)

Case 8:16-cv-02549-TPB-CPT Document 257 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID 10706

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-2549-60CPT

GABY FRAIFER, TELE-CENTER, INC.,
and PLANET TELECOM, INC.,
individually and together d/b/a UlaiTV,
PlanetiTV, and AhlaiTV,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite entered on January 31, 2020. (Doc.
246). In his report and recommendation, Judge Tuite recommended that the Court
grant in part, and deny in part, “Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion for Summary
Judgment” (Doc. 146). Specifically, Judge Tuite recommended that the Court enter
partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of ownership of valid
copyrights in the Registered and Unregistered Works, enter summary judgment in
favor of Plaintiff on all counts of Defendants’ amended counterclaim (Doc. 104), and
otherwise deny Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Judge Tuite further
recommended that the Court deny “Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment on Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint” (Doc. 217).

Page 1 of 3

Case 8:16-cv-02549-TPB-CPT Document 257 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID 10707

Despite Judge Tuite’s detailed and well-reasoned analysis, reflected in his 57page report and recommendation, neither side thinks he got it right – except for the
parts of his decision that favor them. Consequently, all parties filed objections to the
report the recommendation. (Docs. 250, 253, 254, 255). Upon review of the report and
recommendation, objections, responses, court file, and record, the Court finds as
follows:
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, Congress vests Article III judges with the
power to “designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter
pending before the court,” subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The
Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit proposed findings of fact
and recommendations for disposition by an Article III judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations,
a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th
Cir. 1982).
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Tuite’s well-reasoned
report and recommendation, as well as the objections thereto and responses to the
objections, the Court overrules the objections and adopts the report and
recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Tuite’s detailed factual findings and
legal conclusions. The report and recommendation thoughtfully and accurately
addresses the issues presented, and the objections do not provide a basis for rejecting
the report and recommendation.

Page 2 of 3

Case 8:16-cv-02549-TPB-CPT Document 257 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID 10708

It is therefore
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. “Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 146) is hereby
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
2. “Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 146) is
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s ownership of valid copyrights in the Registered and
Unregistered Works. Plaintiff’s motion is also GRANTED to the extent that
judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff’s favor on all counts of Defendants’
amended counterclaim (Doc. 104). Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise DENIED.
3. “Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint” (Doc. 217) is DENIED.
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, and against
Defendants, on all counts of the amended counterclaim (Doc. 104).
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 30th day of
March, 2020.

TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3