WEBB

v.

CITY OF VENICE

M.D. Fla. | 2023-07-10

No. 8:19-cv-3045

District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding attorney's fees and costs, with a modification to the award for a specific deposition transcript.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sought attorney's fees and costs following a prior judgment. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on these motions. Both …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Award Of Costs Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review Clear Error Review Timeliness Of Motion

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Award Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Thomas G. Wilson, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on March 24, 2023, addressing various motions relating to Plaintiff’s requests for attorney’s fees and costs. (Doc. 187).1 Judge Wilson recommends that some of the motions be granted or granted in part and others denied. Plaintiff filed an objection to the report and recommendation on April 7, 2023. (Doc. 189). Defendant filed an objection on April 10, 2023. (Doc. 190). Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objection on April 20, 2023. (Doc. 191). Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s objection on May¹, 2023. (Doc. 193).

F. 2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).

Upon due consideration of the record, the Court adopts the report and recommendation, except with respect to the cost of the deposition transcript of Thomas Mattmuller, for which the Court awards a total of $885.00 instead of the recommended $405.00. The Court otherwise agrees with Judge Wilson’s detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions.² Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

PART.

(2) With respect to the cost of the deposition transcript of Thomas Mattmuller,

Plaintiff is AWARDED $885.00 rather than the recommended $405.00. (3) Judge Wilson’s report and recommendation (Doc. 187) is in all other respects AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (4) “Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs” (Doc. 146) is DENIED. (5) “Defendant’s Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs” (Doc. 147) is

GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is awarded taxable costs in the amount of $4,146.50, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for costs in that amount in favor of Plaintiff Kenite Webb and against Defendant City of Venice. (6) “Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 148) is GRANTED. (7) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Accept Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and

Costs as Timely Filed” (Doc. 151) is DENIED. (8) “Movant Kenite Webb’s Supplemental Statement Pursuant to Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.02(g)(3)” (filed as a motion) (Doc. 163) is DENIED AS

MOOT.

(9) “Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 168) is DENIED. (10) “Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 162) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiff is the prevailing party and entitled to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, which must be requested in a supplemental motion within 45 days of the date of this Order as required by Local Rule 7.01(c). DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of July, 20238.

Co. eee tif. df Fp a I~! Pg

TOM BARBER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

1 The relevant motions are: “Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs” (Doc. 146); “Defendant’s Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs” (Doc. 147); “Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 148); “Plaintiff’s Motion to Accept Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs as Timely Filed” (Doc. 151); “Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 162); “Movant Kenite Webb’s Supplemental Statement Pursuant to Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.02(g)(3)” (filed as a motion) (Doc. 163); and “Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 168). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718

2 Judge Wilson reasoned that Plaintiff’s renewed fee motion (Doc. 162) was timely under Members First Fed. Credit Union v. Members First Credit Union of Fla., 244 F. 3d 806 (11th Cir. 2001). The Court agrees and alternatively holds that Plaintiff’s bill of costs (Doc. 145) can be considered a timely “motion” because it requested relief, specifically, an award of fees. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) and Local Rule 7.01(b), the bill of costs identified the relevant judgment, indicated (in a supporting affidavit) that fees were being sought pursuant to Title VII, and set forth the amount of fees requested. The bill of costs did not include a memorandum, nor did it follow the bifurcated procedure required by Local Rule 7.01, but the Court in its discretion would excuse noncompliance with those requirements under the facts presented here. See Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. v. IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., 533 F. App’x 912, 922 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that district court has discretion to waive or excuse noncompliance with local rules). (1) Judge Wilson’s report and recommendation (Doc. 187) is ADOPTED IN

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982)
Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
Members First Fed. Credit Union v. Members First Credit Union OF Fla., 244 F.3d 806 (11th Cir. 2001)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

WEBB v. CITY OF VENICE