UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-23146-RAR

TIRE GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TIRE GROUP INVESTMENT, LLC and

ALEJANDRO J. QUINTERO,

Defendants.

______________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Lisette M. 

Reid’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 52] (“Report”), filed on January 19, 2022. The 

Report recommends that Defendants Tire Group Investment, LLC and Alejandro J. Quintero be 

held in contempt of court based upon their failure to comply with the following Court orders: (1) 

Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction, enjoining them from infringing on Plaintiff’s 

trademarks and ordering them to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiff a report in writing under 

oath showing how they have complied with the Order [ECF No. 26]; (2) Order Amending Final 

Default Judgment, holding both defendants jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount 

of $16,213.81 [ECF No. 42]; (3) Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause, requiring them 

to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt and compelling them to complete a 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.977(a) Fact Information Sheet [ECF No. 44]; and (4) Order 

directing them to appear in court on November 17, 2021, for a contempt hearing [ECF No. 45]. 

The Report properly notified the parties of their ability to object and the deadline for doing so.

Report at 5. Neither party filed objections. 

Case 1:20-cv-23146-RAR Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2022 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

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). However, when no party has timely 

objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation 

omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has 

acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been 

properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It 

does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s 

factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 

those findings.”). 

Because the parties did not object to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review 

of Magistrate Judge Reid’s findings. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. 

Finding none, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [ECF No. 52] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Pursuant to its inherent civil contempt power, the Court concludes that Defendants 

Tire Group Investment, LLC and Alejandro J. Quintero are in civil contempt of Court for their

failure to comply with this Court’s Orders.

3. In order to induce Defendants to comply with this Court’s Orders, the Court hereby 

imposes a conditional fine of $100.00 per day for each day Defendants fail to comply with Court 

Orders, which fine shall begin accruing from the date of this Order. Defendants may purge 

themselves of contempt by complying with all obligations imposed by this Court’s Orders. Once 

Defendants purge themselves of contempt, the fine imposed by this Order shall cease accruing. 

Case 1:20-cv-23146-RAR Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2022 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

4. The Court finds Defendants Tire Group Investment, LLC and Alejandro J. Quintero 

jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,442.50, which represents the costs and 

fees Plaintiff incurred in bringing Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 44]. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 7th day of February, 2022.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23146-RAR Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2022 Page 3 of 3