SCHWARTZ
v.
ADP, LLC.

M.D. Fla. | 2023-04-06
No. 2:21-cv-283
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, denying defendants' motions for attorney's fees, leave to conduct discovery, and judicial notice.

Facts & Procedural History

Defendants moved for attorney's fees under ERISA and FDUTPA, and for leave to conduct discovery and for judicial notice. The magistrate judge recommen…

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

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
FDUTPA Erisa Plain Error Standard Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fdutpa)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse FDUTPA cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

ADP, INC. and AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC.,

Defendants. /

ORDER1

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek’s Report and Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. 168). Judge Dudek recommends denying Defendants ADP’s and Automatic Data Processing, Inc.’s motions to determine entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees under ERISA (Doc. 141) and FDUTPA (Doc. 150). Judge Dudek also recommends denying Defendants’ related motions for leave to conduct limited discovery (Doc. 149), and for judicial notice (Doc. 155). No party objects to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. So the R&R is ripe for review.

Court finds no plain error. So it accepts and adopts the R&R in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 168) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein. 1. Defendants’ Motion to Determine Entitlement to Reasonable Statutory Attorney’s Fees Under ERISA (Doc. 141) is DENIED. 2. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery (Doc. 149) is DENIED. 3. Defendants’ Motion to Determine Entitlement to Reasonable Statutory Attorney’s Fees Under FDUTPA (Doc. 150) is DENIED. 4. Defendants’ Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 155) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 6, 20238.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,” a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the report and recommendation de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties do not object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain”; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F. 3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999). After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw