WILSON
v.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION
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.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's report and denies the Defendant's motion for costs.
The Defendant moved for costs incurred in a foreign arbitration. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial, finding the costs were not incurred in this …
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 cases and more on FLexlaw
Andre Wilson, Plaintiff, v. Carnival Corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 22-22492-Civ-Scola
Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion for Costs
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's motion to tax costs. (ECF No. 37.) The Plaintiff responded opposing the motion (ECF No. 43), to which the Defendant replied. (ECF No. 44.) The Court referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis for a report and recommendations, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules. (ECF No. 39.)
On December 20, 2024, Judge Louis issued a report, recommending that the Court deny the Defendant's motion. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 45.) Specifically, Judge Louis determined that the costs for which the Defendant seeks reimbursement were not incurred in this case but in a foreign arbitration “that concluded in an award providing that each party would bear its own costs.” (Id. at 3.) Additionally, Judge Louis concluded that the sole cost Defendant requests reimbursement for in this case—a delivery cost—is not reimbursable. (Id. at 4.) Neither party objected to the report and recommendations, and the time to do so has passed.
A district court judge must conduct a de novo review of only “those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636. Where no objections are made, a report may be adopted in full without conducting a de novo review, provided no plain error exists. See id.; Menendez v. Naples Cmty. Hosp. Inc., No. 2:20-CV- 898-SPC-MRM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215317, 2021 WL 5178496, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2021) (collecting cases).
The Court has considered Judge Louis's report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The Court finds Judge Louis's report and recommendations cogent and compelling. The Court affirms and adopts Judge Louis's report and recommendations (ECF No. 45), and the Court denies
Defendant's motion for costs. (ECF No. 37.)
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on January 8, 2025.
Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bueno v. Univ. Of Miami (S.D. Fla. 2023)
- Farrat v. Kijakazi (S.D. Fla. 2024)