8:23-cv-01551
M.D. Fla.
Aug 29, 2025

HUNG PHI DUONG, and KIM NHUNG THI NGUYEN, d/b/a DDG Digital Design Group, v. DDG BIM SERVICES LLC, et al.

Case No. 8:23-cv-1551-KKM-LSG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

August 29, 2025

Document 36 Filed 08/29/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID 433

ORDER

On August 21, 2025, I adopted in part and rejected in part the Magistrate Judge‘s Report and Recommendation regarding the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. (Doc. 34). Although partially objecting to my decision, the plaintiffs request entry of judgment in line with the August 21 order. (Doc. 35). After entry of judgment, the plaintiffs may file a supplemental motion detailing the amount of claimed attorney‘s fees. See Local Rule 7.01(c).1

Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:

  1. The defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from using the DDG mark and the plaintiffs’ trade secrets. The defendants are DIRECTED to destroy all copies of the plaintiffs’ trade secret information in the defendants’ possession and to transfer to the plaintiffs (1) all infringing domain names and social media accounts and (2) all online accounts containing the plaintiffs’ trade secret information.
  2. The Clerk is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT, which shall read “Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on Counts One through Three. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for $2,000,000 in statutory damages and $467 in costs. The Defendants are enjoined pursuant to the Court‘s August 29, 2025, order. Counts Four through Seven are dismissed without prejudice.”
  3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
  4. No later than October 13, 2025, the plaintiffs may file a supplemental motion on the amount of attorney‘s fees. See Local Rule 7.01(c).

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 29, 2025.

Kathryn Kimball Mizelle

United States District Judge

Notes

1
The plaintiffs request that “the Court enter a single final judgment embodying both relief on the merits, and the supplemental relief as to fees and costs.” (Doc. 35) at 2. Both Local Rule 7.01 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) contemplate post-judgment litigation concerning attorney‘s fees, and the plaintiffs do not identify a reason to depart from normal procedure.