Sealver SAS v. Jetskiboat USA Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:23-cv-81091-LEIBOWITZ/REINHART

SEALVER SAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JETSKIBOAT USA INC., ,

Defendants.

______________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for resolution on Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 68]. [ECF No. 69]. Judge Reinhart has since issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 70]. Defendant filed a notice of non- objection to Judge Reinhart’s R&R. [ECF No. 71]. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Reinhart’s R&R in its entirety. “In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party 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) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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 783-84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up). The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Reinhart’s R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Reinhart’s R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s R&R [ECF No. 70| is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 68] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 3. Defendants shall recover attorneys’ fees in the amount of $7,449.50. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 13, 2025. DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record