Serendipity at Sea, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Policy Number 187581

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-60520-RAR/JMS

SERENDIPITY AT SEA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBER 187581,

Defendant. ___________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AWARDING DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 278], on Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (“Motion”), [ECF No. 268], filed on November 30, 2023. The Report recommends awarding Defendant $51,196, representing $50,000 in attorney’s fees and $1,196 in non-taxable costs. See Report at 1. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, [ECF No. 274], to the Motion on December 21, 2023, and Defendant filed a Reply in Support, [ECF No. 277], on January 2, 2024. The Report was entered on February 26, 2024, and objections were due by March 11, 2024. See Report at 5. To date, no objections have been filed. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 US. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[] [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”) (cleaned up). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (Sth Cir. 1982)). Because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court considers it appropriate to review the Report for clear error. Finding none after having carefully reviewed Defendant’s Motion, the Report, the factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report, [ECF No. 278], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Non-Taxable Costs, [ECF No. 268], is GRANTED. 3. Defendant is hereby awarded $50,000 in attorney’s fees and $1,196 in non-taxable costs for a total award of $51,196. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 12th day of March, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2