Social Life Network, Inc. v. Peak One Opportunity Fund, L.P.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 21-cv-21373-GAYLES/TORRES

SOCIAL LIFE NETWORK, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEAK ONE OPPORTUNITY FUND, L.P., et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 88]. The action was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 53]. On July 20, 2023, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”). [ECF No. 96]. Plaintiff has timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 97]. 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 objection is 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 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). In his Report, Judge Torres found that (1) Defendants are entitled to fees and expenses; (2) deferring ruling on the Motion pending Plaintiff's appeal is not warranted; (3) some of the attorneys’ hourly rates are unreasonable; (4) the requested number of hours expended 1s generally reasonable, but some entries were duplicative or excessive; and (5) Defendants’ requested expenses are reasonable. [ECF No. 96]. After adjusting the hourly rates and billable hours, Judge Torres recommended that the Court award $142,902.50 in fees and $15,000 in expenses, totaling $157,902.50. In its objections, Plaintiff does not challenge the Report’s findings as to entitlement to or the amount of fees and expenses but argues that the Court should defer ruling pending appeal. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Motion and the record and agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned findings and recommendations. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after careful consideration, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 96], is ADOPTED in FULL; (2) Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, [ECF No. 88], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (3) Defendants shall recover from Plaintiff $142,902.50 in attorney’s fees and $15,000 in costs for a total of $157,902.50, for which let execution issue. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of August, 2023.

Df DL UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE