`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`CASE NO. 23-23185-CV-WILLIAMS
`
`
`RUN-TIGER, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND
`UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED
`ON SCHEDULE A TO THE COMPLAINT,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
`ORDER
`
`THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report
`
`and Recommendation (DE 69) (“Report”) on Plaintiff Run-Tiger, LLC’s Motion for Entry
`
`of Final Default Judgment (DE 62) (“Motion”) against Defendants listed in Schedule A
`
`to the Complaint numbered 233, 235, 236, 239 to 278, 281, 282, 290, 293, 295, 296,
`
`298, 301, 303 to 308, 310, 312, 318 to 321, 324, 325, 327, 329 to 333, 335 to 338, 342,
`
`346 to 355, 357, 358, 364, 365, 367, 370 to 372, 374, 376, 377, 380, 382, 385, and 389
`
`to 396 (“Defaulting Defendants”).1 In the Report, Judge Reid recommends that the
`
`Motion be GRANTED. (DE 69 at 1.)
`
`Specifically, Judge Reid recommends that (i) Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default
`
`Judgment (DE 62) be granted, and a permanent injunction be entered against
`
`Defendants; (ii) Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages for copyright infringement be
`
`
`1 Plaintiff’s Motion (DE 62) includes multiple Defendants who have been voluntarily
`dismissed since the filing of the Motion: Defendants Nos. 231, 279, 283 to 285, 287 to
`289, 291, 292, 294, 297, 299, 300, 302, 311, 313 to 316, 322, 326, 334, 339, 340, 343 to
`345, 356, 359, 360 to 362, 366, 373, 375, 378, 379, 383, 384, 386, 388, and 397 listed in
`Schedule A. Accordingly, the Court excludes these Defendants from this Order.
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-23185-KMW Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2024 Page 2 of 2
`
`granted and Plaintiff be awarded a total of $150,000 in statutory damages against each
`
`Defaulting Defendant; and (iii) Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages for the use of
`
`counterfeit marks be granted and Plaintiff be awarded a total of $200,000 in statutory
`
`damages against each Defaulting Defendant. (DE 69 at 9, 11, 12.) No objections were
`
`filed to the Report, and the time to object has passed.
`
`Upon a careful review of the Report, the Motion, the record, and applicable law,
`
`it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Judge Reid’s Report (DE 69) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment (DE 62) against
`
`Defaulting Defendants is GRANTED and a permanent injunction is entered
`
`against Defaulting Defendants.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages for copyright infringement is
`
`GRANTED and Plaintiff is awarded a total of $150,000 in statutory
`
`damages against each Defaulting Defendant.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages for the use of counterfeit marks is
`
`GRANTED and Plaintiff is awarded a total of $200,000 in statutory
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`damages against each Defaulting Defendant.
`
`The Court will separately issue a default final judgment.
`
`This case is CLOSED. All hearings and deadlines are CANCELED. Any
`
`pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 27th day
`
`of April, 2024.
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
