Creative Choice Homes XXX, LLC v. Amtax Holdings 690, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XXX, LLC f/k/a CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XXX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:19-cv-1903-TPB-AAS

AMTAX HOLDINGS 690, LLC, and PROTECH 2005-C, LLC,

Defendants. /

CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XXXI, LLC f/k/a CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XXXI, INC.,

v. Case No. 8:19-cv-1910-TPB-AAS

MG AFFORDABLE MASTER, LLC, MG GTC MIDDLE TIER I, LLC, and MG GTC FUND I, LLC,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda A. Sansone, entered on April 5, 2023. (Doc. 228; Doc. 216). Judge Sansone recommends that the defendants’ motions for an award of attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs and expenses (Doc. 197; Doc. 184) be granted in part and denied in part. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and

recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and

recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in all respects. The Court agrees with Judge Sansone’s detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions. As such, Defendants’ motions are granted. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. The report and recommendations (Doc. 228; Doc. 216) are AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. 2. The defendants are awarded reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $420,363.90 in the Fountainview litigation and $431,666.70 in the Park Terrace litigation against the plaintiffs, and 3. The defendants are awarded non-taxable costs and expenses of $38,947.67 in the Fountainview litigation and $48,922.75 in the Park Terrace litigation against the plaintiffs. 4. The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs in the total amount of $939,901.02, which represents $852,030.60 in attorneys’ fees and $87,870.42 in non-taxable costs and expenses. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of June, 2023.

— -TOMBARBER i (asssi‘“‘iCs:sts~™S UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 8 of 3