MSC TRADING, S.A. v. ANDRES PABLO DELGADO and SOUTH FLORIDA LUMBER CO.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-20075-DPG

MSC TRADING, S.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDRES PABLO DELGADO and SOUTH FLORIDA LUMBER CO.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Edwin G. Torres (the “Report”) [ECF No. 107], and Supplemental Report and Recommendation (the “Supplemental Report”) [ECF No. 113], on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. [ECF No. 90]. On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) seeking $330,077.00 in attorneys’ fees and $37,762.15 in non-taxable costs. [ECF No. 90]. Defendants did not file a response to the Motion. On April 9, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending the Motion be granted, in part, such that Plaintiff be awarded $308,495.00 in attorneys’ fees. [ECF No. 107]. On October 6, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Supplemental Report recommending that Plaintiff also be awarded $37,762.06 in non-taxable costs. [ECF No. 113]. Defendants did not object to the Report or Supplemental Report. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Given that Defendants have not objected to any portion of the Report or Supplemental Report, the Court reviewed the Report and Supplemental Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 107], is ADOPTED in full. (2) The Supplemental Report, [ECF No. 113], is ADOPTED in full. (3) Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall be awarded $308,495.00 in attorneys’ fees and awarded $37,762.06 in non-taxable costs. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of October 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE