UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 22-cv-23189-GAYLES/TORRES

MCM ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

MARIA CLAUDIA MOLINA, and

LUNAMAR WELLNESS GROUP, LLC.,

 Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,

v.

DIAZ WORLD TRADE GROUP, INC. 

and MARCO DIAZ,

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants MCM 

Entertainment, Inc., Maria Claudia Molina, and Lunamar Wellness Group, LLC’s Motion to 

Dismiss and/or Strike Elements of Defendants’ “Statement of Defenses,” (“Motion to Strike”)

[ECF No. 86], and Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counter-Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Counterclaims (“Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 89]. The action was referred to Chief Magistrate 

Judge Edwin Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 118].

On January 30, 2024, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion to Strike be 

granted in part and denied in part and that the Motion to Dismiss be granted (the “Report”). [ECF 

No. 167]. Defendants timely filed their objections the Report on February 13, 2024. [ECF No. 175].

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 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2024 Page 1 of 2
2

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 

objection is 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). 

In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to all 

counterclaims and that the Motion to Strike be granted with respect to Defense Numbers 1, 4, 6, 

7, 10, and 16 and denied with respect to Defense Numbers 8, and 9. [ECF No. 167 at 21]. Upon 

de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that 

the Motion to Strike should be granted in part and denied in part and that the Motion to Dismiss 

should be granted in full.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 167], is ADOPTED in 

full;

(2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Elements of Defendants’ “Statement of 

Defenses” [ECF No. 86] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

(3) Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counter-Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

Counterclaims [ECF No. 89] is GRANTED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of February, 2024. 

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2024 Page 2 of 2