Lima et al v. Lee

Filing 207

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 125 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Y. Kris Lee, 201 Report and Recommendations,, ; ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Judge Matthewman for Briefing Schedule. ; granting in part an d denying in part 125 Motion ; Adopting 201 Report and Recommendations on 125 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Y. Kris Lee, 201 Report and Recommendations,,. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 7/8/2024. See attached document for full details. (cqs)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-82399-CIV-SINGHAL/MATTHEWMAN WAGNER PONTES LIMA and D4U USA LAW GROUP, LLC, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. Y. KRIS LEE, Defendant/Counter-Claimant. __________________________________/ Y. KRIS LEE, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. D4U USA LAW FIRM, LLC and D4U USA CONSULTING LLC, Third-Party Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER has come before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable William Matthewman (the “Report and Recommendation”) (DE [201]). On May 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Matthewman issued the Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendant Y. Kris Lee’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (“Motion to Enforce”) (DE [125]) be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Wagner Pontes Lima (“Plaintiff”) filed a timely objection. (DE [202]). Plaintiff claims that “no evidence was ever presented in the two-day evidentiary hearing supporting any type of damage allegedly sustained by Y Kris Lee” and, therefore, objects to “any damages awarded to Ms. Lee.” Id. at 2. Because the Report and Recommendation recommends granting the remedy of specific performance in connection with the contractual breaches, not monetary damages, Plaintiff’s objection is moot. See (Report and Recommendation (DE [201]) at 28–29). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (DE [201]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 2. Defendant Lee’s Motion to Enforce (DE [125]) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. The Court makes the following findings: a. Plaintiff Lima has knowingly and willfully breached Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement by failing to timely and fully dismiss the Brazilian criminal case. b. Plaintiff Lima’s “breach before the breach” defense is inapplicable under the facts of this case. Defendant Lee has not breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to her failure to timely dissolve D4U USA Law Group LLC or pursuant to the minimal online presence that remains linking her to the D4U USA Law Group LLC name. 2 c. Plaintiff Lima has violated Section 7 of the Settlement Agreement based on the public posting of his Instagram video and his other postings, which were disparaging, defaming, and harming to the reputation of Defendant Lee. 4. Defendant Lee’s Motion to Enforce (DE [125]) is GRANTED to the extent it requests specific performance pertinent to Sections 4 and 7 of the Settlement Agreement. a. Plaintiff Lima SHALL immediately dismiss in full the Brazilian criminal case against Defendant Lima, pursuant to Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement. b. Plaintiff Lima SHALL issue a retraction of all disparaging remarks concerning Defendant Lee on Instagram and any other social media platforms he utilized, pursuant to Section 7 of the Settlement Agreement. 5. Defendant Lee’s Motion to Enforce (DE [125]) is GRANTED to the extent it requests attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the Motion to Enforce. a. This matter is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Matthewman to set a briefing schedule and to determine the reasonableness and amount of attorneys’ fees and costs due Defendant Lee. 6. All other requests not addressed above in Defendant Lee’s Motion to Enforce (DE [125]) are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 8th day of July 2024. Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?