Nobles v. Electriduct, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Nobles v. Electriduct, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-60899-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

PATRICIA NOBLES,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ELECTRIDUCT, INC., et al,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [DE 42], and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow [DE 48]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 48] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 48] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger,

847 F.2d 745, 749-50

(11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,

488 U.S. 958

(1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.,

996 F.2d 1144, 1149

(11th Cir. 1993). Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 48] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 48] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [DE 42] is GRANTED in part; 1 3, Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,000.00 and costs in the amount of $450.00. 4. This remanded action shall remain CLOSED. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 7" day of December, 2020.

f a ? ; 2 (F a | / . f Poff a3 v Py j ‘4 ta ase □□ fe a VAY “2, A (Ma VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow

Reference

Status
Unknown