BTL INDUSTRIES, INC.
v.
TECHNO ESTHETICS 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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation regarding attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff BTL moved for attorney's fees and costs. A Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation on the motion. No objections were filed 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 Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff BTL’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [DE 41] (the “Motion”) and the February 17, 20232 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 46]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 46] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 46] 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 46] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 46] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff BTL’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [DE 41] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 3. Plaintiff is hereby awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $46,210. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 6th day of March, 2023.
fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af
CA MAGIA AYN GC
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies to: Judge Hunt Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)