LIFECELL IP HOLDINGS, LLC et al v. Cosmedique, LLC et al

Filing 268

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION overruling 264 Objections to Report and Recommendations filed by Cosmedique, LLC, Vyacheslav Borodin, Global Media Group, LLC ; denying 202 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in pa rt and denying in part 204 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Adopting 258 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 7/19/2021. See attached document for full details. (pcs)

Case 0:19-cv-60978-RAR Document 268 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2021 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-CV-60978-RAR
LIFECELL IP HOLDINGS, LLC,
and SOUTH BEACH SKIN CARE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COSMEDIQUE, LLC, GLOBAL MEDIA GROUP, LLC,
VYACHESLAV BORODIN, and JOHN DOES 1–5,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________/
VYACHESLAV BORODIN, COSMEDIQUE LLC, and
GLOBAL MEDIA GROUP, LLC,
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTH BEACH SKIN CARE, INC. and
LIFECELL IP HOLDINGS, LLC,
Counterclaim Defendants.
__________________________________________________/
VYACHESLAV BORODIN, COSMEDIQUE LLC, and
GLOBAL MEDIA GROUP, LLC,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRIS SUAREZ,
Third-Party Defendant.
_______________________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra’s Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 258]. The Report recommends that the Motion for

Case 0:19-cv-60978-RAR Document 268 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2021 Page 2 of 3

Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Vyacheslav Borodin [ECF No. 202] (“Borodin’s
Motion”) be denied and that the Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by South Beach
Skin Care, Inc., Lifecell IP Holdings, LLC, and Chris Suarez [ECF No. 204] (“SBSC’s, Lifecell’s,
and Suarez’s Joint Motion”) be granted in part and denied in part. See Report at 2-3.
On June 21, 2021, Borodin, Cosmedique LLC, and Global Media Group, LLC
(“Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs”) timely filed Objections to the Report (“Objection”) [ECF No.
264]. On July 2, 2021, SBSC and Lifecell (“Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants”) and Third-Party
Suarez timely filed their Joint Response to the Objection (“Response”) [ECF No. 266]. The Court
being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 258] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED as explained herein.
LEGAL STANDARD
This Court reviews de novo the determination of any disputed portions of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report. United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010). Any portions of
the Report to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A proper objection “identifie[s] specific
findings set forth in the [Report] and articulate[s] a legal ground for objection.” Leatherwood v.
Anna’s Linens Co., 384 F. App’x 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2010) (alterations and emphasis added;
citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Becerra’s Report and
Defendants’/Counter-Plaintiffs’ Objection thereto, the Court overrules the objection and adopts
the Report. The Court agrees with Judge Becerra’s detailed and well-reasoned findings of fact and

Page 2 of 3

Case 0:19-cv-60978-RAR Document 268 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2021 Page 3 of 3

conclusions of law. The Report thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the Objection
does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs’ Objection [ECF No. 264] is OVERRULED.

2.

The Report [ECF No. 258] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

3.

Borodin’s Motion [ECF No. 202] is DENIED.

4.

SBSC’s, Lifecell’s, and Suarez’s Joint Motion [ECF No. 204] is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part as follows:
a. GRANTED as to Counts I, II, and III of Defendants’/Counter-Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Counterclaim [ECF No. 189];
b. GRANTED as to Counts I and II of Defendants’/Counter-Plaintiffs’ ThirdParty Complaint Against Suarez [ECF No. 189]; and
c. DENIED as to Count II of Lifecell and SBSC’s Amended Complaint [ECF No.
30].
5.

Further, Count III of the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 30] is hereby DISMISSED

for lack of standing and SBSC’s, Lifecell’s, and Suarez’s Joint Motion as to the same is DENIED
AS MOOT.
6.

Lastly, this matter is STAYED for forty-five (45) days upon the entry of this Order

to permit the parties to engage in mediation.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 19th day of July, 2021.

_________________________________
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3