Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Strong Supplements LLC

Filing 23

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 22 the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that permanent injunctive relief pr ohibiting Defendant Strong Supplements, LLC from producing, licensing, marketing, or selling any products containing Prohormones is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded DAMAGES for: (1) Defendants profits in the amount of $2 ,018,854 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(1); (2) attorneys fees in the amount of $13,995 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (3); and (3) Costs in the amount of $959 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(3). The total recommended award being granted totals $2,033,808. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION LLC, 4 5 6 Plaintiff, vs. STRONG SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, 7 8 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:17-cv-02603-GMN-VCF ORDER 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable United 11 States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 22), regarding Plaintiff Nutrition 12 Distribution LLC’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 18). 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 17 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 19 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 20 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 22 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. 25 Page 1 of 2 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 22), is 3 4 5 6 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 18), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant 7 Strong Supplements, LLC from producing, licensing, marketing, or selling any products 8 containing Prohormones is GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded DAMAGES for: 10 (1) Defendant’s profits in the amount of $2,018,854 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(1); 11 (2) attorney’s fees in the amount of $13,995 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(3); and 12 (3) Costs in the amount of $959 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(3). 13 The total recommended award being granted totals $2,033,808. 14 17 DATED this ___ day of December, 2018. 15 16 17 ___________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 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?