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. 174]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Non-State Defendants’ Supplemental Motion in Connection with the Court’s Order Awarding Rule 11 Sanctions (the “Report”) [ECF No. 174]. On September 19, 2022, Non-State Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion in Connection with the Court’s Order Awarding Rule 11 Sanctions (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 146]. On April 4, 2023, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 174 pp. 3, 18]. On April 5, 2023, Defendants Timothy Schulz, Palm Beach Florida Hotel and Office Building Limited Partnership (“PB Hotel”), Ashford TRS Lessee, II LLC, Nantucket Enterprises, Inc. (“Nantucket”), Robert Abruzzo, and Alan Rose filed Notices of Non-Objection to the Report [ECF Nos. 175, 176]. On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report [ECF No. 179], and Defendants Nantucket, PB Hotel, Alan Rose, Timothy Schultz, and Robert Abruzzo (the Non-State Defendants), filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 180]. 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,

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(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.

(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,

. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil,

, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 174], Plaintiffs’

Objections [ECF No. 179], Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 180], 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. Non-State Defendants’ Supplemental Motion in Connection with the Court’s Order Awarding Rule 11 Sanctions [ECF No. 146] is therefore GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 174 pp. 5–17]. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 174] is ACCEPTED. CASE NO. 21-81467-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2. The Motion [ECF No. 146] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Defendants Nantucket Enterprises, Inc., Robert Abruzzo, and Alan Rose shall be awarded a total of $8,040.50 in reasonable attorneys’ fees as a Rule 11 sanction jointly and severally against Patrick Maraist, Esq. and Maraist Law Firm, P.A. b. Defendants PB Hotel and Timothy Schulz shall be awarded a total of $6,360.00 in reasonable attorneys’ fees as a Rule 11 sanction jointly and severally against Patrick Maraist, Esq. and Maraist Law Firm, P.A. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 27th day of April 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record