Motile Optics, LLC v. Azend Group Corp.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 22 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Azend 21 is DENIED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 03/03/17. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MOTILE OPTICS, LLC,
AZEND GROUP CORP.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-01053-RWS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 22), recommending that Plaintiff Motile
Optics, LLC (“Motile Optics” or “Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment (Docket No. 21)
against Defendant Azend Group Corp. (“Azend” or “Defendant”) be denied and that Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Docket No. 22 at 5. The Report and Recommendation
informed the parties of their rights to object to those findings within 14 days, and further
informed the parties that a failure to timely object “shall bar that party from de novo review by
the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except on grounds of
plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted and adopted by the district court.” Docket No. 22 at 5 (citing Douglass v. United States
Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)).) No party has filed objections within the
prescribed time period for doing so.
Nonetheless, having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s findings. The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant Azend had filed an
answer, denied Plaintiff’s allegations of infringement, disputed jurisdiction, and pled several
affirmative defenses. Docket No. 22 at 4–5, citing Docket No. 14. The Magistrate Judge noted
that Plaintiff’s motion did not provide any support for default judgment in light of these
circumstances. Id. at 5. The Magistrate Judge also noted that while Azend has stopped defending
this action, it has been dissolved by the California Secretary of State. Id. Weighing these
relevant considerations, the Magistrate Judge therefore determined that Plaintiff was not entitled
to default judgment. Id. The Court agrees with this conclusion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to
Defendant Azend (Docket No. 21) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
SIGNED this 3rd day of March, 2017.
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?