New Moon Reptiles LLC et al v. Saekow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 26-80055-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
NEW MOON REPTILES LLC, and
TWO AMIGOS IMPORTS &
EXPORTS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DARIKA SAEKOW d/b/a DD’S PLANTS,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe’s Report
and Recommendation, issued on January 22, 2026 (the “Report”) [ECF No. 7]. 	The Report
recommends denying without prejudice Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 4]. The Court has reviewed the Report,
the Motion, Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 11], and the full record. 	Upon review, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiff’s Objections are general, lack any citations to authority, and otherwise fail to show
any error in the Report’s conclusions. See United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir.
2009) (“Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court”
(quotation omitted)). 	Even were the Court to conduct de novo review of the Report, the Court
agrees with the Report’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any emergency
Case 9:26-cv-80055-AMC Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 1 of 2

CASE NO. 26-80055-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
2
justifying the requested ex parte temporary restraining order.1
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ACCEPTED.
2. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
[ECF No. 4] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Pierce, Florida, this 17th day of February 2026.
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
1 Plaintiffs’ own argument demonstrates that there is no “immediate and irreparable injury” such
that a TRO must be entered “before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(1)(A). 	Despite having sent a cease & desist letter back on October 20, 2025, and having
received a letter from Defendant’s counsel “denying liability and refusing compliance” on October
30, 2025, Plaintiffs still opted to wait for nearly twelve weeks “to see how this correspondence
would resolve” [ECF No. 11 p. 3]. Evidentially, then, Plaintiffs have demonstrated an ability to
communicate with Defendant regarding the social media posts at issue, await a response, receive
a response, and then still wait nearly twelve weeks before filing for a TRO. These facts belie any
suggestion that Plaintiffs would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage . . .
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A), for their very
reason proffered for waiting to seek this relief is that they were hearing and attempting to resolve
the opposing party’s opposition. See Bender v. Esper, No. 19-CV-00355, 2020 WL 4960834, at
*5 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2020) (“The most basic logic dictates that if Plaintiff can afford to wait
several weeks to determine if she wants to go forward with her motion for a preliminary injunction,
then it is highly unlikely that Plaintiff is suffering an irreparable harm that requires the Court to
issue such an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’ as a preliminary injunction.” 	(citing Siegel v.
LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000))).
Case 9:26-cv-80055-AMC Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 2 of 2