SEVARES
v.
AMERICAN PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION, 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.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees and costs. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part, reducing paralegal hourly rates and award…
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 Review Of Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 34).1 The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 35).
On July 13, 2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 38), recommending Plaintiff’s Motion be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781,
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that: (1) Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable, see R&R at 5; but (2) the hourly rate of $150.00 requested for Plaintiff’s paralegals “is excessive and should be reduced” to $125.00 per hour, see id. at 5–6; (3) Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Pollock billed 1.0 billable hours at $450.00 per hour, Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Cummings billed 14.2 billable hours at $350.00 per hour, and Plaintiff’s paralegals billed 5.4 hours of billable time at the above-determined rate of $125.00 per hour; so in total, Plaintiffs are owed a grand total of $6,095.00 in attorneys’ fees, see id. at 6–9; and (4) Plaintiffs may recover $402.00 in taxable costs, see id. at 9–11. This Court agrees. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 38) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant is awarded $6,095.00 in attorney’s fees and $402.00 in taxable costs. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 2nd_ day of August, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record