PNC BANK, N.A.
v.
KOOL STUFF DESIGNS, LLC
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 attorneys' fees dispute, the district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to grant in part and deny in part PNC Bank's motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. The court awarded $5,408.00 in total fees and costs after finding no clear error in the magistrate's analysis.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granting the motion in part and denying it in part, and awarded $4,644.00 in attorneys' fees and $764.00 in costs for a total of $5,408.00.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo determination of portions of a magistrate judge's report to which specific objections are made.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report to which no objections are filed are reviewed for clear error.
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“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.”
Establishes the procedural requirement 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 intelligencePNC Bank, N.A. filed a motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs against Kool Stuff Designs, LLC. A magistrate judge conducted an analysis of th…
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 De Novo Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin- Birch's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Costs [ECF No. 17]). [ECF No. 21 (the “R&R")]. Judge Augustin-Birch recommends granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Costs. [ECF No. 21]. The parties did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R in its entirety.
“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). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.”S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R is thorough, correct, and well-reasoned. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R [ECF No. 21] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Costs [ECF No. 17] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
3. Plaintiff is awarded $4,644.00 in attorneys' fees and $764.00 in costs, for a total award of $5,408.00.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
5. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and any pending deadlines are
TERMINATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 29, 2025.
cc: counsel of record