Noble House, LLC v. Derecktor Florida, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-cv-62438-GAYLES/STRAUSS

NOBLE HOUSE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERECKTOR FLORIDA, INC.,

Defendant. ______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Strauss’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 193], regarding Defendant Derecktor Florida, Inc.’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs, (the “Motion for Fees and Costs”), [ECF No. 191]. On March 25, 2024, the Court referred the Motion for Fees and Costs to Judge Strauss, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a report and recommendation. [ECF No. 192]. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Fees and Costs. On April 17, 2024, Judge Strauss issued his Report recommending that the Motion for Fees and Costs be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 193]. No objections to the Report were filed be either party. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made 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 objections are 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). Having reviewed the Report for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Strauss’ well- reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion for Fees and Costs should be granted in part and denied in part. Affiliati Network, Inc. v. Benson, No. 20-23076-CIV, 2022 WL 4134353, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Affiliati Network, Inc. v. Forefront Com. LLC, No. 20-23076-CIV, 2022 WL 4131112 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2022). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Strauss’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 193], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Fees and Costs, [ECF No. 191], is GRANTED in part and denied in part. 3. Defendants are hereby awarded $280,194.25 in attorneys’ fees plus $40,686.70 in non-taxable costs, for a total award of $320,880.95 for which sum let execution issue. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of May, 2024.

Df BL 4 UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE