Mind Body & Soul v. Practice Growth Partners: From Removal to Dismissal in 76 Days, and What Defendants Should Learn

Mind Body & Soul, Inc. v. Practice Growth Partners, LLC d/b/a ClinicGrowers, No. 3:26-cv-01392-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla., Pensacola Division), shows how quickly a well-prepared Florida defendant can contain a trademark case in the Northern District of Florida.

Two Pensacola aesthetics businesses sued a clinic-marketing company that had controlled a website for them in Escambia County Circuit Court and asked for an emergency injunction.

The vendor:

• removed the case to federal court the same day its lawyers appeared;
• answered the emergency motion with a sworn declaration that it had already handed back the website and stopped any use;
• moved to dismiss the complaint as vague.

Just three days after the defendant’s response, U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II denied the injunction without a hearing. In a pointed footnote, he suggested the plaintiffs would be better served by settling than by “costly and time-consuming litigation that may spawn counterclaims.” A settlement in principle followed within four weeks. The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 13, 2026, 76 days after removal.

This update is based on the full federal docket and the court’s orders: the Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 6), the Order Denying Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 11), the Joint Notice of Settlement (Doc. 18) and the Order of Dismissal (Doc. 22). It closes with practical recommendations for Florida companies defending trademark claims in the Northern District.

The parties and the marks

The plaintiffs are two related Pensacola businesses founded by Marlee Bruno, PA-C, an aesthetic injector and educator:

• Mind Body & Soul, Inc., which operates the med spa practice Mind Body & Soul Medical.
• Injector Coach Institute, Inc., a Florida corporation formed in October 2023 that runs hands-on training courses for aesthetic injectors at 630 E. Government Street in Pensacola.

The defendant, Practice Growth Partners, LLC d/b/a ClinicGrowers, is a Florida limited liability company that provides marketing and growth services to clinics. Its corporate disclosure statement (Doc. 8) identifies Breffni McHugh and Bradley Ferris as affiliates. The record confirms that the dispute grew out of a working relationship. The defendant’s sworn declaration says it transferred a website and the website’s access information to the plaintiffs, as they had requested, and a July 2025 post on the Injector Coach Institute site is credited to “Clinic Grower”. This was a dispute between two Florida companies, so there was no diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs’ federal trademark claim was the only basis for removal.

What marks are at issue?

The court’s order refers only generally to “Plaintiffs’ intellectual property,” and we found no federal registration owned by the plaintiffs for MIND BODY & SOUL or INJECTOR COACH INSTITUTE. If the claims rest on unregistered names, they would proceed under § 1125(a) and Florida common law. “Mind body soul” is also a crowded phrase at the USPTO. Unrelated owners hold or have sought marks such as MIND, BODY & SOUL FITNESS (Reg. No. 5,496,789) and MIND + BODY + SOUL COACH.

The case at a glance

Case	Mind Body & Soul, Inc. and Injector Coach Institute, Inc. v. Practice Growth Partners, LLC d/b/a ClinicGrowers
Federal case number	3:26-cv-01392-TKW-HTC
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division
Judges	U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II; referred to Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon
Originally filed in	Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, No. 2026 CA 159
Removed	February 26, 2026, by the defendant (28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question)
Nature of suit / jury	Trademark (840); jury demanded by the plaintiffs
Key ruling	Preliminary injunction denied without a hearing, March 12, 2026 (Doc. 11)
Outcome	Settlement in principle April 7, 2026; dismissed with prejudice May 13, 2026 (Doc. 22)
Time in federal court	76 days

The complete docket

Date	Doc.	Event
Feb. 26, 2026	1–5	Notice of removal from Escambia County by Practice Growth Partners. The plaintiffs’ state-court “emergency motion for temporary injunction” comes with it
Feb. 26, 2026	6	Initial Scheduling Order entered the same day: discovery opens immediately, the Rule 26(f) report is due April 13 and discovery closes June 26, 2026
Mar. 4, 2026	7–8	Report on the case sent to the USPTO; defendant’s corporate disclosure statement
Mar. 9, 2026	9	Defendant’s motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement
Mar. 9, 2026	10	Defendant’s response opposing the injunction, with exhibits and the Declaration of Bradley Ferris
Mar. 12, 2026	11	Order denying the preliminary injunction, without a hearing
Mar. 13, 2026	12–16	Phelps Dunbar appears for the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs seek more time to answer the motion to dismiss, with the defendant’s consent
Mar. 16, 2026	17	Extension granted to April 6 to respond to the motion or amend as of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B)
Apr. 7, 2026	18	Joint Notice of Settlement under N.D. Fla. Local Rule 16.2: an agreement in principle resolving “all claims, defenses or counterclaims that were or could have been brought”; the parties ask the court to stay deadlines for 20 days
Apr. 8, 2026	19	Order requiring a status report in 21 days, then every 30 days, until dismissal
Apr. 29, 2026	20	Plaintiffs’ status report
May 12, 2026	21	Stipulation of dismissal with prejudice
May 13, 2026	22	Order of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); case closed

The plaintiffs never answered the motion to dismiss or amended their complaint. The case settled one day after their extended deadline to do so.

The order denying the preliminary injunction

In state court, the plaintiffs had filed an “emergency motion for temporary injunction” under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. After removal, Judge Wetherell explained that federal procedure governs, and that federal courts issue temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions under Rule 65. Because the defendant had notice and had responded, the court treated the motion as one for a preliminary injunction and decided it on the papers: “No hearing is needed.”

The court applied the Eleventh Circuit’s four-part test: likely success, irreparable harm, balance of equities and the public interest. It stressed that “failure to show any of the four factors is fatal.” It then ruled on irreparable harm alone, giving three reasons:

1. Past use can be compensated with money. The defendant’s “alleged prior unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property can be remedied by money damages if warranted.”
2. Sworn facts beat conclusory allegations. The plaintiffs’ “vague and conclusory allegations” of ongoing use were “refuted by the sworn representations” that the defendant had transferred the website and its access information, was not using the plaintiffs’ intellectual property and did not intend to.
3. The plaintiffs waited too long. They “failed to show that they were diligent in promptly seeking injunctive relief.”

The footnote. The order’s footnote may have mattered most. The court pointed to the defendant’s sworn offer to address any other “discrete violations” the plaintiffs identified (Doc. 10-3 ¶¶ 33, 36). It also noted the defendant’s indication that it could bring counterclaims (¶¶ 31, 37–39). The court observed that the plaintiffs “may be better served by working towards a reasonable resolution of this case than by pushing forward with costly and time-consuming litigation that may spawn counterclaims by Defendant.” It added that, “given the vague and conclusory allegations in the complaint,” the plaintiffs would “likely” need to amend. Four weeks later, the parties announced a settlement.

Settlement and dismissal

The parties used N.D. Fla. Local Rule 16.2 to notify the court of their agreement in principle and to ask for a stay of all deadlines. The court ordered status reports until the case was dismissed. The joint notice describes a deal resolving all claims, defenses and counterclaims “that were or could have been brought.” The dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiffs cannot refile the same claims. The settlement terms were not filed with the court.

Recommendations for Florida companies defending trademark claims in the Northern District

The ClinicGrowers defense is close to a model for responding to a trademark suit in the Northern District of Florida. These are the lessons we draw from it.

1. If you are sued in state court on a federal claim, consider removal right away

A state-court complaint that includes a Lanham Act count can be removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of service (§ 1446(b)). Here, removal brought the plaintiffs’ “emergency temporary injunction” request under the federal standard, where a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right” and the court expects concrete evidence. Removal also put the case before a judge who decides motions quickly on the written record. Weigh removal promptly as the 30-day window does not reopen.

2. Fix the problem before you respond, then prove it under oath

The decisive fact was that ClinicGrowers had already turned over the website and its login credentials and stopped any use, and said so in a sworn declaration. A defendant that has stopped the conduct, and can prove it, takes away the plaintiff’s claim of ongoing harm. In practice, that means:

• return domains, websites, social accounts and passwords promptly when a client relationship ends;
• remove any disputed name, logo or content; and
• document each step with dates, screenshots and confirmations of transfer, ready for a declaration.

A declaration from someone with personal knowledge is far more persuasive than a lawyer’s argument.

3. Offer, in writing, to fix any remaining specific problems

The court specifically credited the defendant’s sworn offer to address any other “discrete violations” the plaintiffs could identify. An offer like this shows good faith, undercuts the claim that only an injunction will do and makes continued litigation look unreasonable. Make the offer specific, put it in the record and keep it open.

4. Attack irreparable harm first, including any delay

The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 restored a presumption of irreparable harm (15 U.S.C. § 1116(a)), but the presumption can be rebutted. Judge Wetherell denied relief on irreparable harm alone and did not reach likelihood of confusion. Defendants should lead with the three points that worked here: (1) any past harm can be paid for with money, (2) any ongoing use has stopped, as shown by sworn evidence, and (3) the plaintiff waited too long. Build a timeline showing when the plaintiff knew of the conduct and when it finally sought emergency relief.

5. Challenge a vague complaint, while preparing for amendment

ClinicGrowers moved to dismiss or for a more definite statement (Doc. 9) at the same time it opposed the injunction. The court agreed the complaint’s allegations were “vague and conclusory” and predicted an amended complaint. In the Eleventh Circuit, a complaint that lumps claims together or fails to give fair notice of what each defendant did can be dismissed as a “shotgun pleading” (Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015)). Trademark complaints should identify the mark, the basis for ownership, the accused use and the time it occurred. Remember that the plaintiff can amend once as a matter of course within 21 days of a Rule 12 motion (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)), so the motion’s main value is forcing the plaintiff to commit to specific facts.

6. Identify your counterclaims early, and let them be known

The Ferris declaration pointed to counterclaims (Doc. 10-3 ¶¶ 31, 37–39), and the court noted that continued litigation “may spawn counterclaims by Defendant.” Former vendors and partners often have claims of their own: unpaid invoices, breach of contract, defamation or tortious interference, or a challenge to an unregistered or descriptive mark. Assess these at the start. Credible counterclaims change the cost-benefit math for the plaintiff.

7. Plan for the Northern District’s compressed schedule from the start

Judge Wetherell’s Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 6) was entered on the day of removal and shows how little time defendants have:

Requirement	Deadline under Doc. 6
Discovery opens	Immediately, “irrespective of whether a motion to dismiss is filed.” A stay must be requested by separate motion
Rule 26(f) conference / joint report	Within 30 days / 14 days after that (here, April 13, 2026)
Last day to serve discovery requests	75 days before the discovery cutoff
Motions to compel	No later than 30 days before the cutoff; the court ordinarily awards fees on motions to compel
Expert disclosures	Plaintiff within 60 days of the order; defendant 30 days after that
Motions to amend or join parties	30 days after the Rule 26(f) conference
Discovery cutoff	About four months after the order (here, June 26, 2026)
Summary judgment and Daubert motions	21 days after discovery closes
Extensions	Only for good cause and a showing of diligence; a motion does not automatically extend a deadline

A defendant that waits for a ruling on its motion to dismiss before preparing its defense may lose its own expert deadline, which comes only 90 days after the order. Collect documents, identify witnesses and line up any survey or damages expert in the first few weeks.

8. Settle on terms that end the dispute

The settlement used Local Rule 16.2 to pause all deadlines and finished with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Defendants should insist on:

• a release covering all claims that “were or could have been brought”;
• dismissal with prejudice, which bars the same claims from being refiled;
• no admission of liability and, where possible, no consent injunction; and
• clear terms on who owns which websites, accounts and content after the settlement.

9. Prevent the next dispute with your client contracts

This case arose from a marketing relationship. Agencies and vendors that build websites, social accounts and brand content for Florida businesses should state in their contracts who owns what, what happens when the relationship ends, and how disputes are resolved (for example, through mediation first). Handing over client assets on request, as this defendant did, avoids the injunction fight altogether.

Been sued for trademark infringement in Pensacola? Contact our team Florida Trademark Law Firm today at [email protected] or call 305-374-8303 to address defending these allegations in the Northern District of Florida.