Bravo v. IQ Data International, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

LUCIA BRAVO, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:21-cv-887-TPB-SPF IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. _______________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Sean P. Flynn, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 9, 2022. (Doc. 97). Judge Flynn recommends that “Defendant I.Q. Data International’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 73) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Flynn recommends that the motion be granted as to Plaintiff Lucia Bravo and denied as to attorney Jon P. Dubbeld. Judge Flynn further recommends that Attorney Dubbeld’s request for an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in defending the motion be denied. No objection was filed, and the time to object has expired.

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); 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error.

Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Flynn’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Flynn’s well-reasoned factual findings and conclusions.

Consequently, Consequently, the motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs is granted as to Plaintiff Lucia Bravo and denied as to Attorney Jon P. Dubbeld.

Attorney Dubbeld’s request for an award of reasonable expenses in defending the motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Flynn’s report and recommendation (Doc. 97) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) “Defendant I.Q. Data International’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 73) is hereby GRANTED as to Plaintiff Lucia Bravo and DENIED as to Attorney Jon P. Dubbeld. (3) Attorney Dubbeld’s request for an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in defending the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) is DENIED. (3) Defendant IQ Data is directed to supplement its motion regarding the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees it expended responding to Plaintiffs complaint in compliance with Local Rule 7.01(c).

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 30th day of August, 2022.

| / | ¥ —~ Eh TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3