David Richard Urban v. SB 2028 LLC D/B/A Bella Monte Delicatessen and Kenneth D. Hines

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:24-CV-60652-WPD DAVID RICHARD URBAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SB 2028 LLC D/B/A BELLA MONTE DELICATESSEN, and KENNETH D. HINES,

Defendants ______________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff DAVID RICHARD URBAN (“Plaintiff”)’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(B) [DE 34] (the “Motion”); United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt’s January 13, 2026 Report & Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 43]; and Defendants SB 2028 LLC D/B/A/ BELLA MONTE DELICATESSEN and KENNETH D. HINES (“Defendants”)’s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 44]. 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 specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and 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 Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation [DE 44]. Having carefully considered the Defendant’s Objection, the Court overrules the Objection. This FLSA action was resolved by settlement on the eve of trial, after exhibit and witness lists, motions in limine, and the mandatory joint pretrial stipulation had been filed. See [DE’s 24-27]. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion that as to both the hourly rate that he recommends being awarded to each of Plaintiff’s attorneys and as to the hours reasonably expended, including an across-the- board cut of an additional 10 percent beyond the 8.1 percent discount applied by Plaintiffs counsel. See [DE 43]. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 43] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendants’ Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 44] is OVERRULED; 3. Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(B) [DE 34] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 4. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $14,240 for Mr. Kozolchyk (35.6 hours at $400 per hour), and $3,600 for Mr. Cuthbertson (14.4 hours at $250 per hour), for a total award of $17,840. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 28th day of January, 2026.

}

LLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record