Maraist Law Firm v. Coates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 21-81467-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart MARAIST LAW FIRM and PATRICK MARAIST, Plaintiffs, v. ALAN ROSE, ROBERT ABRUZZO, TIMOTHY SCHULZ, PALM BEACH FLORIDA HOTELAND OFFICE BUILDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and ASHFORD TRS LESSEE II, LLC., Defendants. / ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 156] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (the “Report”) [ECF No. 156], filed on November 30, 2022. On April 20, 2022, Defendant Nantucket Enterprises, Inc. filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 127]. On November 29, 2022, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 156 pp. 1, 32]. On December 6, 2022, Defendants Nantucket Enterprises, Timothy Schulz, Palm Beach Florida Hotel and Office Building Limited Partnership, and Ashford TRS Lessee, II LLC filed Notices of Non-Objection to the Report [ECF Nos. 157, 158]. On December 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report [ECF No. 159], and Defendant Nantucket Enterprises filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 160].1 Defendants Timothy Schulz, Palm Beach Florida Hotel and Office Building Limited Partnership, and Ashford TRS Lessee, II LLC also filed an Untimely Response to Plaintiffs’ objections To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 156], Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 159], Defendant Nantucket Enterprises’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 160], and the full record in this case. Upon review of the foregoing materials, including the authority and analysis provided in Plaintiffs’ Objections, the Court finds Judge Reinhart’s Report to be well-reasoned and correct. Defendant Nantucket Enterprises’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 127] is therefore GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 156 pp. 7–32]. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 156] is ACCEPTED.

2. The Motion [ECF No. 127] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

[ECF No. 161], which the Court subsequently struck [ECF No. 162].

CASE NO. 21-81467-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart a. Defendant Nantucket Enterprises, Inc. shall be awarded a total of $46,747.80, consisting of $46,500.34 in attorneys’ fees and $247.46 in costs.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 30th day of January 2023. : AILEEN(M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record