NOBLE HOUSE, LLC
v.
DERECKTOR FLORIDA, INC.
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 post-judgment fees dispute, the district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting in part and denying in part defendant Derecktor Florida's motion for attorneys' fees and non-taxable costs, awarding a total of $320,880.95.
The motion for attorneys' fees and non-taxable costs is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is awarded $280,194.25 in attorneys' fees and $40,686.70 in non-taxable costs, totaling $320,880.95.
[1] A district court need only review a magistrate judge's report for clear error when no timely objections are filed.
[2] Failure to object to a magistrate judge's factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on those findings.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports and recommendations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Derecktor Florida, Inc. filed a motion for attorneys' fees and non-taxable costs following litigation with plaintiff Noble House, LLC. The p…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Strauss' Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 193], regarding Defendant Derecktor Florida, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non-Taxable Costs, (the “Motion for Fees and Costs”), [ECF No. 191]. On March 25, 2024, the Court referred the Motion for Fees and Costs to Judge Strauss, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a report and recommendation. [ECF No. 192]. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's Motion for Fees and Costs. On April 17, 2024, Judge Strauss issued his Report recommending that the Motion for Fees and Costs be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 193]. No objections to the Report were filed be either party.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific
objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having reviewed the Report for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Strauss' wellreasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion for Fees and Costs should be granted in part and denied in part. Affiliati Network, Inc. v. Benson, No. 20-23076-CIV, 2022 WL 4134353, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Affiliati Network, Inc. v. Forefront Com. LLC, No. 20-23076-CIV, 2022 WL 4131112 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2022).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Strauss' Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 193], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.
2. Defendant's Motion for Fees and Costs, [ECF No. 191], is GRANTED in part and denied in part.
3. Defendants are hereby awarded $280,194.25 in attorneys' fees plus $40,686.70 in non-taxable costs, for a total award of $320,880.95 for which sum let execution issue.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of May, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)