Schalamar Creek Mobile Homeowner's Association, Inc. v. Adler

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

SHERRY ATWOOD, JAMES DRISKELL, PHIL FEATHERBAY, DON GLEDHILL, LINDA GLEDHILL, BARB GRIFFIN, JOETTE KELLY, CATHY LISKA, and SCHALAMAR CREEK MOBILE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 8:19-cv-291-TPB-AEP

STEVEN ADLER, LORRAINE DEMARCO, R. SCOTT PROVOST, CHARLES CROOK, MARTI NEWKIRK, MUREX PROPERTIES, L.L.C, THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, RANDALL KNAPP, OSPREY LINKS, LLC, SCHALAMAR GP, INC., RICHARD LEE, DAVID EASTMAN, and LUTZ, BOBO & TELFAIR, P.A.,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Anthony E. Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 11, 2022. (Doc. 187). Judge Porcelli recommends that Defendants’ “Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs” (Doc. 185) be granted to the extent that Defendants are awarded $356,888.48 in attorney’s fees and $9,365.20 in costs. On September 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an objection. (Doc. 202). 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); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court

agrees with Judge Porcelli’s well-reasoned factual findings and conclusions, and the objections do not provide a basis for overruling the report and recommendation. Consequently, Consequently, Defendants’ motions for sanctions are denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation (Doc. 187) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.

(2) Defendants’ “Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 185) is granted to the extent that Defendants are awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $356,888.48 and costs in the amount of $9,365.20. (3) The Clerk is directed to prepare an amended judgment that includes the award of attorney’s fees and costs, as set forth herein. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 26th day of September, 2022.

A ee f / ‘| v fe, 4. a / bill / OQ) -% TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3