McManus v. Amerijet International, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

McManus v. Amerijet International, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 21-cv-61617-DPG

MARCIA MCMANUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERIJET INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s Verified Motion for Award of Attorney and Professional Fees (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 127]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B), for a Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 131]. On June 17, 2024, Judge Strauss issued his report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”). [ECF No. 134]. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report. [ECF No. 135]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636

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

565 F.3d 1353, 1360

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

199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276

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

208 F. App’x 781, 784

(11th Cir. 2006). In his Report, Judge Strauss recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion. Although Plaintiff filed objections, Plaintiffs brief notes that she “does not make any substantive objections to the R&R.” [ECF No. 135].! Therefore, the Court only reviews the Report for clear error. The Court finds no clear error with Judge Strauss’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant is entitled to $44,972 in attorney and professional fees. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after careful consideration, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 134], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendant’s Verified Motion for Award of Attorney and Professional Fees [ECF No. 127] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (3) Defendant’s counsel be awarded $44,972 in attorney and professional fees, for which let execution issue. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of July, 2024.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE

| Plaintiff files her objections to “reserve[] her right to move to vacate any award of attorney’s fees/costs, including any judgment awarding said fees and/or costs, in the event that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of Plaintiff and reverses the Court’s Order dismissing the underlying case with prejudice.”

Id.

Reference

Status
Unknown