DAVID RICHARD URBAN
v.
SB 2028 LLC D/B/A BELLA MONTE DELICATESSEN AND KENNETH D. HINES
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.
In this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement case, the district court approved a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding plaintiff David Richard Urban's request for attorneys' fees. The court awarded reduced fees totaling $17,840 after applying an additional 10% reduction beyond the discount already applied by plaintiff's counsel.
The court approved the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, awarding $14,240 for one attorney (35.6 hours at $400/hour) and $3,600 for another attorney (14.4 hours at $250/hour), for a total of $17,840, which included an additional 10% reduction beyond the discount already applied by plaintiff's counsel.
[1] A party challenging a magistrate judge's report and recommendation must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the report and the basis for the obje…
[2] A district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when specific objections are timely filed.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge 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.'”
Establishes the standard for challenging magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis FLSA action was resolved by settlement on the eve of trial after exhibit and witness lists, motions in limine, and a mandatory joint pretrial sti…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hourly Rate cases and more on FLexlaw
and KENNETH D. HINES, Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 0:24-CV-60652-WPD
ORDER APPROVING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff DAVID RICHARD URBAN ("Plaintiff")'s Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(B) [DE 34] (the “Motion”); United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt's January 13, 2026 Report & Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 43]; and Defendants SB 2028 LLC D/B/A/ BELLA MONTE DELICATESSEN and KENNETH D. HINES (“Defendants")'s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 44]. The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge 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) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F. 2d 5,
which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation [DE 44]. Having carefully considered the Defendant's Objection, the Court overrules the Objection. This FLSA action was resolved by settlement on the eve of trial, after exhibit and witness lists, motions in limine, and the mandatory joint pretrial stipulation had been filed. See [DE's 24-27]. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and conclusion that as to both the hourly rate that he recommends being awarded to each of Plaintiff's attorneys and as to the hours reasonably expended, including an across-theboard cut of an additional 10 percent beyond the 8.1 percent discount applied by Plaintiff's counsel. See [DE 43].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 43] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendants' Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 44] is OVERRULED; 3. Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(B) [DE 34] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 4. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $14,240 for Mr. Kozolchyk (35.6 hours at $400 per hour), and $3,600 for Mr. Cuthbertson (14.4 hours at $250 per hour), for a total award of $17,840.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 28th day of January, 2026.
WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1984)