UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-22313-COOKE/GOODMAN

SAMIR MOUSSA and JAMILE MOUSSA,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON,

Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER is before the Court on U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (ECF No. 30) regarding Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees contained within Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Remand (ECF No. 14). Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the Court referred this case to Judge Goodman for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. On March 7, 2022, Judge Goodman issued his Report in which he recommended that: 1) Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees stemming from the improper removal of this action be granted in part and denied in part; and 2) Plaintiffs be awarded $6,625.50 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report on March 21, 2022. ECF No. 33. Thereafter, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ Objections on April 4, 2022. ECF No. 34. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). After conducting a de novo review of the record, Plaintiffs’ Objections to Judge Goodman’s Report, Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Objections, and the relevant legal authorities, the Undersigned agrees with Judge Goodman’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis and conclusion. Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Judge Goodman’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30) is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED; 2. Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and 3. Plaintiffs are awarded $6,625.50 in attorney’s fees. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 13th day of October 2022.

Ble UNITED STATES DIST COURT JUDGE For Marcia G. Cooke, U.S’ District Judge

Copies furnished to: Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record