Perkins v. Trek Bicycle Corporation
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 51 ; denying motion for summary judgment 29 and objection 35 ; granting motion for summary judgment 31 ; signed by District Judge Jane M. Beckering (lep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JCHON PERKINS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:24-cv-25
v.
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION,
Defendant.
____________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated an action in state court against Defendant,
which Defendant removed here under this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See Perkins v. Trek
Bicycle Corp., 1:21-cv-179-JTN-SJB. In 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated the instant
action in state court against Defendant, which Defendant removed here, again under this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge. On December 18, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant
Defendant’s motion. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation. Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff’s objections. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de
novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have
been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
In resolving the parties’ motions, the Magistrate Judge ultimately determined that
Plaintiff’s present claims are barred by application of the doctrine of res judicata. In his objections
to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff argues that certain “new evidence and independent
wrongful conduct” by Defendant, discovered after the conclusion of the 2021 case, distinguish the
present action from the 2021 action, rendering res judicata inapplicable (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 52 at
PageID.572–574). However, each piece of new evidence that Plaintiff identifies—Defendant’s
alleged reputation as a “trademark bully,” the dismissal of Defendant’s filing in the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office, Plaintiff’s economic harm, and Defendant’s alleged “broader strategy” to
suppress smaller competitors (id. at PageID.574–575)—was before the Magistrate Judge and
thoroughly considered by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s objection does not demonstrate any
factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion, only Plaintiff’s disagreement
with the result.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court, and a Judgment will be entered consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 52) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 51) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
29) and Objection (ECF No. 35) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
31) is GRANTED.
Dated: January 27, 2025
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
2
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?