GARCIA
v.
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, 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.
The court approved the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, overruling the defendant's objections and awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $11,225.
The defendant moved for determination of attorneys' fees and costs. The Magistrate Judge recommended an award of $11,225. The defendant objected to 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 Objections To Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Nova Southeastern University, Inc. (“Defendant”)’s Motion for Determination of Amount of Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs against Plaintiff Dr. Elpidio Jose Garcia [DE 52]; the May 18, 2023 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt, recommending that Plaintiff be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,225 [DE 52]; and Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 53].1 The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the
objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 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 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendant’s
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 53]. Having carefully considered the Defendant’s Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s finding that that 50 hours adequately compensates Defendant’s counsel for the hours reasonably spent for attorney work in this case. See [DE 52] at pp. 4-7. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 52] is hereby APPROVED;
2. Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 53] is OVERRULED;
3. Defendant’s Motion for Determination of Amount of Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs against Plaintiff Dr. Elpidio Jose Garcia [DE 52] is hereby GRANTED IN PART;
4. Defendant is hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,225.00;
5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address listed below. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 2023.
f a ? ; 2 (F a “4 if { FO etre zd a3 v ty j ‘4 ta ase Af Avy ANA JAY A” Ci t ff l LLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Hunt Elpidio Jose Garcia 1679 E. Judi Street Casa Grande, AZ 85122
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1984)