Monster Energy Company v. Owoc et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-60357-CV-WILLIAMS
MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN H. OWOC, et al.,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-
Birch’s Report and Recommendations (DE 55) (“Report”) on Defendant John H. Owoc’s
(“Defendant”) Amended Motion to Enforce the One Satisfaction Rule and Bar Additional
Collection by Monster Energy Company and to Require Monster Energy to Dismiss All
Claims and Remove All Liens (“Amended Motion”) (DE 52). In the Report, Judge
Augustin-Birch recommends denying the Amended Motion because the relief requested
therein must be sought from the Central District of California. (DE 55 at 4).
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge,
a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the 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)
(cleaned up). Under the Southern District of Florida Local Rules, objections must also
cite to the relevant supporting legal authority. S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b). Here, Defendant
timely filed Objections to the Report but, as discussed infra, did not present supporting
Case 0:24-cv-60357-KMW Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
legal authority for his positions. (DE 57). Accordingly, upon review of the Report, the
Objections, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court adopts Judge Augustin-Birch’s
Report.
I. 	Background
On January 11, 2024, a California District Court entered judgment against
Defendant, and in favor of Plaintiff Monster Energy Company (“Plaintiff”), in the amount
of $307,856,736.14 with post-judgment interest. (DE 1 at 6-26). Plaintiff registered that
judgment in this District on March 1, 2024. (DE 1). Plaintiff then moved for and obtained
a writ of execution, proceedings supplementary, and the entry of a charging order. (DE
6; DE 7; DE 8; DE 10; DE 16; DE 28).
On August 11, 2025, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Motion to
Enforce the One Satisfaction Rule and Bar Additional Collection by Monster Energy
Company and to Require Monster Energy to Dismiss all Claims and Remove All Liens
(DE 52). In his Amended Motion, Defendant asked the Court to “apply the One
Satisfaction Rule and bar Monster Energy Company from Recovering any further
damages against Bang Energy (Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) or its founder, Jack Owoc
because Monster has already received compensation far exceeding any alleged harm.”
(Id. at 18). Judge Robin L. Rosenberg referred the matter to Judge Augustin-Birch (DE
38), who entered her Report recommending the denial of the Amended Motion (DE 55).
This case was then reassigned to this Court for all further proceedings. (DE 56).
Subsequently, Defendant filed his Objections to Judge Augustin-Birch’s Report (DE 57)
and Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendant’s Objections (DE 60).
Case 0:24-cv-60357-KMW Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
II. 	Discussion
The “one-satisfaction rule” generally “provides that a plaintiff is entitled to only
one satisfaction for a single injury.” BUC Int'l Corp. v. Int'l Yacht Council Ltd., 517 F.3d
1271, 1276 (11th Cir. 2008). The rule “operates to prevent double recovery, or the
overcompensation of a plaintiff.” Id. at 1277. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure governs the application of the one-satisfaction rule.1 See BUC Int’l Corp., 517
F.3d at 1275 (“[M]otions seeking credit for settlement amounts obtained against joint
tortfeasors are appropriately brought under Rule 60(b)(5).”); Losch v. Experian Info.
Sols., Inc., No. 2:18-CV-809-MRM, 2022 WL 17823593, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 22, 2022)
(“[T]he weight of authority suggests that a one-satisfaction rule determination should be
made by the Court on a post-judgment motion under Rule 60(b)(5).”). It is well
established that “Rule 60(b) motions are made in the court that rendered the judgment.”
Jones v. Georgia, No. 7:17-CV-00116-HL-TQL, 2017 WL 3687657, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Aug.
25, 2017) (quoting McMillan v. MBank Fort Worth, N.A., 4 F. 3d 362, 366 n.8 (5th Cir.
1993)).
Accordingly, it was inappropriate for Defendant to file his Amended Motion in this
District because the original judgment was rendered in the Central District of California.
See, e.g., Cascella v. Canaveral Port Dist., 197 F. App’x 839, 842 (11th Cir. 2006) (“A
motion [under Rule 60(b)] for relief from final judgment must be filed in the district court
and in the action in which the original judgment was entered.” (internal quotations
omitted)); Bell v. Woods, No. 5:20-MC-10-JSM-PRL, 2022 WL 428440, at *4 (M.D. Fla.
1 As Judge Augustin-Birch points out, Defendant agreed with this point in his Amended Motion. (DE 52 at
1-2). Indeed, Defendant brought the Amended Motion “pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(5)” and argued that “[Rule 60(b)(5)] squarely applies here.”
Case 0:24-cv-60357-KMW Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:20-MC-10-JSM-PRL, 2022
WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022) (explaining that Rule 60(b) motions should
generally be brought in the district court that rendered the original judgment); Roberts v.
Est. of Aretha Patricia Young, No. 8:23-CV-1578-SDM-SPF, 2023 WL 9119241, at *3
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2023) (“Moreover, Rule 60(b) allows a party to attack the judgment
from the same court in which the motion is brought, it does not provide for an attack on
a judgment from another court.”).
In his Objections, Defendant argues that his Amended Motion does not fall under
the parameters of Rule 60(b) because he is “not challenging the merits of the California
judgment” and is merely asserting “a defense to enforcement.” (DE 57 at 3). Putting
aside the fact that Defendant’s Amended Motion explicitly states that it was brought
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), Defendant offers no legal authority to support his position that
the application of the one-satisfaction rule is not governed by Rule 60(b). The cases that
Defendant does cite, however, do hold that Rule 60(b) governs motions seeking relief
from a judgment. See Torres-Troche v. Municipality of Yauco, 873 F.2d 499, 501 & n.7
(1st Cir. 1989) (explaining that Rule 60(b)(5) governed motion that sought “relief from a
judgment that has been satisfied” by a prior settlement payment). Next, Defendant cites
to Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998), for the proposition that
“enforcement courts may apply equitable doctrines to prevent unfairness in collection.”
(DE 3 at 3). Nothing in Baker, however, suggests that this Court must break with
precedence and view the one-satisfaction rule outside the parameters of Rule 60(b).
Indeed, Baker is about the ability of a witness to testify in a products liability action
without running afoul of the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. There is no
Case 0:24-cv-60357-KMW Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
discussion of the one-satisfaction rule, and this Court does not find that case germane
to its consideration of Defendant’s Amended Motion.
Defendant 	further 	argues 	that 	the 	Full 	Faith 	and 	Credit 	Clause 	requires
recognition of judgments entered in other states, but the enforcement state must abide
by 	their 	own 	enforcement 	doctrines. 	Defendant 	thus 	appears 	to 	argue 	that,
notwithstanding the California judgment, this Court should apply the one-satisfaction rule
to preclude enforcement in Florida. Defendant did not raise this Full Faith and Credit
Clause argument in his Amended Motion and, consequently, Judge Augustin-Birch could
not consider it in her Report. Because this argument was raised for the first time in the
Objections, this Court does not address it. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. RSUI Indem. Co., No.
9:19-CV-80010, 2019 WL 7899723, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 9, 2019) (“In the Eleventh
Circuit, district courts have the discretion not to consider arguments raised for the first
time in an objection to a magistrate's report and recommendation.”); Williams v. McNeil,
557 F.3d 1287, 1290-92 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that “a district court has discretion to
decline to consider a party's argument when that argument was not first presented to the
magistrate judge”).2 In short, Defendant does not dispute that motions under Rule 60(b)
are properly brought in the district that entered the original judgment (DE 52 at 3), but
argues that his Amended Motion does not qualify as a Rule 60(b) motion. Without any
2 Defendant argues that compelling him “to seek relief in California after domestication has already
occurred in Florida would contradict the very purpose of the Full Faith and Credit Clause—to make
judgements portable, enforceable, and subject to uniform recognition.” (DE 57 at 5). Yet, while the Full
Faith and Credit Clause compels this Court to recognize the judgment entered by its sister district,
Defendant does not cite any authority that would allow this Court to apply the Full Faith and Credit Clause
to grant relief against the California judgment or allow Defendant to litigate a Rule 60(b) motion in this
District. Defendant appears to conflate the enforcement of his judgment, which is within this Court’s
purview, with the application of the “one-satisfaction rule,” which would fall squarely within the jurisdiction
of the Central District of California. Accordingly, even if the Court addressed Defendant’s Full Faith and
Credit Clause argument, it would not change the outcome of this Order because that argument does not
affect the application of Rule 60(b) to the Amended Motion.
Case 0:24-cv-60357-KMW Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
supporting legal authority, this Court does not find this argument persuasive.
Upon a careful review of the Report, the Objections, the record, and applicable
law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Judge Augustin-Birch’s Report (DE 55) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. 	Defendant’s Amended Motion (DE 52) is DENIED.
DONE 	AND 	ORDERED 	in 	Chambers 	in 	Miami, 	Florida, 	on this 	13th 	day
of January, 2026.
Case 0:24-cv-60357-KMW Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 6 of 6