Reptiles v. Plants & Dogs: Reptiles Lose

From the Report & Recommendation in New Moon Reptiles LLC v. Saekow d/b/a DD’s Plants, issued by Magistrate Judge Ryon McCabe (S.D. Fla.) on January 22 and approved Tuesday by District Judge Aileen Cannon:

This is a defamation and tortious interference case arising from social media posts. Plaintiffs operate a Florida-based business engaged in the importation, exportation, and sale of reptiles. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant … published false social media posts claiming that Plaintiffs caused the death of certain reptiles by shipping them to a trade show in California under unsafe circumstances that caused their deaths….

Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant in Nevada on October 20, 2025. Defendant responded on October 30, 2025, through counsel, by denying any wrongdoing and refusing to remove the social media posts at issue. By way of the pending motion, Plaintiffs seek entry of an ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that would, among other things:

1. prohibit Defendant from publishing or republishing statements concerning Plaintiffs, their owners, or their families,
2. require Defendant to remove previously published social media posts,
3. enjoin Defendant from encouraging or inciting third-party contact or harassment, and
4. maintain these restraints through the pendency of the case.

As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Defendant has not been served or appeared in the case….

[A]n ex parte TRO cannot be entered unless the moving party sets forth specific facts that clearly show a risk of immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage that will result before the adverse party can be heard in opposition. The Court finds no such facts here. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made repeated defamatory social media posts “beginning in October 2025.” Significantly, Plaintiffs do not provide the latest date of any such post. The Court’s own review of the record shows the most recent post to be dated October 16, 2025. Plaintiffs waited approximately three months to seek this TRO. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, “[a] delay in seeking a preliminary injunction of even only a few months — though not necessarily fatal — militates against a finding of irreparable harm.” …

The scope of the requested TRO further weighs against ex parte relief. The requested TRO would prohibit Defendant from engaging in future speech and compel the removal of existing online content. Where requested relief operates as a prior restraint against speech, courts require an especially demanding showing of immediacy and irreparability. The instant motion fails to meet this high standard….

Next, a TRO cannot be entered without a prima facie showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the restrained defendant…. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, a resident of Nevada, committed defamation by making a nationwide social media post. The Court questions whether the current Complaint makes out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over Defendant. See Moore v. Cecil (11th Cir. 2024) (affirming dismissal of social media defamation case against a nonresident defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction)…

Judge Cannon approved this, writing “Plaintiff’s Objections are general, lack any citations to authority, and otherwise fail to show any error in the Report’s conclusions.” You can read the objections here, and defendant’s motion to dismiss here. For those waiting for the dog connection, the defendant’s lawyer is Marcy LaHart, an animal law specialist whose e-mail address has the domain name doglaw.co and whose website echoes that.