UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-81772-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

MICHAEL REGER

MLR HOLDINGS 2020, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

ALL THINGS GEL, LLC, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER APPROVING REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED 

MOTION TO ENFORCE INJUNCTION, FOR CONTEMPT, AND FOR SANCTIONS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion to Enforce Injunction, 

for Contempt, and for Sanctions [DE 123] (the “Motion”); United States Magistrate Judge Ryon 

M. McCabe’s April 15, 2024 Preliminary Report & Recommendation and May 14, 2024 Final 

Report & Recommendation (collectively, the “Reports”) [DE’s 238, 251]; and Plaintiffs’ 

Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 281]. The Court has carefully considered these 

filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court notes that 

Magistrate Judge McCabe held a 4.5 hour evidentiary hearing on the Motion on March 28, 2024 

in which he heard argument of counsel, admitted exhibits, and admitted sworn testimony of 

several witnesses. See [DE 216]. 

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United 

States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the 

Case 9:22-cv-81772-WPD Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2024 Page 1 of 3
portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the 

specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be 

sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 

(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific 

objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de 

novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 

783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x 

at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Plaintiffs’ 

Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 281]. Having carefully considered the Plaintiffs’

Objection, the Court overrules the Objection. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 

analysis and conclusions regarding the alleged violations at issue that forms the basis for 

Plaintiffs’ Motion. See [DE’s 238, 251]. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 

analysis and conclusion regarding a fair and appropriate amount of the civil contempt sanction

considering the facts and circumstances of this case. See [DE 251].

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Reports [DE’s 238, 251] are hereby APPROVED; 

2. Plaintiffs’ Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 281] is OVERRULED;

3. Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion to Enforce Injunction, for Contempt, and for Sanctions 

[DE 123] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. The Motion is DENIED as to Logan Cordani. 

Case 9:22-cv-81772-WPD Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2024 Page 2 of 3
b. The Motion is DENIED as to Mark Daniels. 

c. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Peter Cordani. 

i. Peter Cordani shall continue to make requests to YouTube to remove the 

content of @PeterCordani2160 and @Atglabs6524. He shall provide 

YouTube with a copy of this Order as proof that he has been ordered to do 

so by this Court. 

ii. Peter Cordani shall remove from his LinkedIn page all posts and/or 

videos that feature or refer to the FireIce products or the link to the 

@PeterCordani2160 YouTube page. 

iii. Peter Cordani shall pay to Plaintiffs, as a civil contempt sanction, the 

reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this Motion, with 

adjustments to account for the fact that Plaintiffs achieved only partial 

success. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 

29th day of May, 2024.

Copies furnished to:

Judge McCabe

Counsel of Record

Case 9:22-cv-81772-WPD Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2024 Page 3 of 3