UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23276-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, LLC 

and STEVEN A. CERASALE,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s 

Report and Recommendation on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (the “Report”) [ECF No. 

257] regarding Plaintiff Unisource Discovery, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against 

Count I (Cancellation of Trademark) of Defendants’ Counterclaim [DE 81] (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) 

[ECF No. 141] and Defendants’, Unisource Discovery, LLC and Steven A. Cerasale, Motion for 

Summary Judgment as to Counterclaim for Cancellation of Trademark (“Defendants’ Motion”) 

[ECF No. 151]. On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Unisource 

Discovery, LLC and Steven A. Cerasale. [ECF No. 1]. On November 1, 2020, the Court referred 

this matter to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF 

No. 20]. 

On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Motion seeking summary judgment in its favor as to 

Defendants’ counterclaim for cancellation of trademark. [ECF No. 141]. On August 6, 2021, 

Case 1:20-cv-23276-DPG Document 291 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendants filed their Motion also seeking summary judgment in their favor as to their 

counterclaim for cancellation of trademark. [ECF No. 151]. On January 13, 2022, Judge OtazoReyes issued her Report recommending that both Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendants’ Motion be 

denied. [ECF No. 257]. On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants filed their respective 

Objections to the Report. [ECF Nos. 262 & 263].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which 

objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 

objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint 

Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

Having conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ Motion, and the 

record, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned analysis and recommendation 

that both Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendants’ Motion be denied. As to Plaintiff’s Objections, 

Defendants bring forth sufficient evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s 

subjective intent to defraud the United States Patent and Trademark Office. As to Defendants’ 

Objections, the Court shall not reconsider Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report in light of Plaintiff’s 

Affidavit, see [ECF No. 182-1], which was submitted after Defendants filed their Motion and has 

since been stricken from the record, see [ECF No. 210].

Case 1:20-cv-23276-DPG Document 291 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation on the 

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 257], is AFFIRMED AND 

ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Count I (Cancellation of 

Trademark) of Defendants’ Counterclaim [DE 81], [ECF No. 141], is DENIED.

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counterclaim for Cancellation of 

Trademark, [ECF No. 151], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 14th day of March, 2022.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23276-DPG Document 291 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 3 of 3