Opinion
21-CV-60114-RAR
12-08-2021
FUTURE METALS LLC, Plaintiff, v. FRANK RUGGIERO, Defendant.
JARED M. STRAUSS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 118] (“Report”), filed on October 26, 2021. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 21] (“Motion”). See Report at 1. Specifically, the Report recommends that the Court grant the Motion to the extent it seeks to continue the Stipulated Order. Id. at 48. Defendant filed objections, in part, to the Report on November 9, 2021 [ECF No. 119], to which Plaintiff filed a Response [ECF No. 120].
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Because Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss's legal and factual findings. The Court finds that (1) Defendant was not ambushed by the Magistrate Judge having considered the Illinois' Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“ITSA”) claim raised in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because Defendant, in fact, briefed these issues throughout the proceedings, including in Defendant's pre-hearing opposition to the Motion, see [ECF No. 40] at 4; (2) Magistrate Judge Strauss applied the correct legal analysis in determining whether Plaintiff could succeed on its claim under the ITSA; and (3) Plaintiff adequately demonstrated that irreparable injury would occur if the injunction was not granted. In addition, the Court declines to address the fourth objection raised by Defendant as Defendant's new position at TW Metals was never presented to Magistrate Judge Strauss. See Sunflower Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 19-CIV-80743-RAR, 2020 WL 5757085, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2020) (declining to consider argument raised for the first time in objections to report and recommendation and observing that “a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge.”) (citing Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009)).
In sum, having carefully reviewed the Motion and all related pleadings, the Report, Defendant's Objections, Plaintiffs Response, and the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 118] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks to continue the Stipulated Order [ECF No. 18] but is otherwise DENIED.
3. The Stipulated Order is extended nunc pro tunc until two years following the termination of Defendant's employment with Plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff is not required to post bond.
DONE AND ORDERED.