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)
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?