NAGAR
v.
ROSENBERG
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 Nagar v. Rosenberg, the district court addressed defendants' motion to tax costs in a civil dispute. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the defendants' motion to tax costs and the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees without prejudice.
The court denied defendants' Motion to Tax Costs and denied the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees without prejudice, adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full.
“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 83] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes that the court adopted the magistrate judge's findings without objection.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves Plaintiff Nagar and Defendants Steven Rosenberg and The Towers of Oceanview East Condominium Association, Inc. (TOVE). Defendants f…
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 Taxation Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants Steven Rosenberg and The Towers of Oceanview East Condominium Association, Inc. (“TOVE”)’s Motion to Tax Costs [DE 80], filed on May 3, 2024, and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch (the “Report”) [DE 83], dated June 25, 2024. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 83] have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 83] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 83] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusion that the Motion [DE 80] should be denied and Plaintiff's request for attorneys’ fees raised in her response should be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 83] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED.
2. Defendants Rosenberg and TOVE’s Motion to Tax Costs [DE 80] is hereby
DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's request for attorneys’ fees raised in her response is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 10th day of July 2024.
j f / a j; y. Off, } ii As j if fas ae? A 4 MAMA AMWAY
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)