Securities and Exchange Commission v. Davison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:20-cv-00325-MSS-NHA BRIAN DAVISON; BARRY M. RYBICKI; EQUIALT LLC; EQUIALT FUND, LLC; EQUIALT FUND II, LLC; EQUIALT FUND III, LLC; EA SIP, LLC; Defendants, and E. DAVIS BLVD, LLC, et al., Relief Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Receiver’s Unopposed Eighteenth Quarterly Fee Application for Order Awarding Fees and Reimbursement of Costs to Receiver and His Professionals. (Dkt. 1210) The Receiver seeks fees and costs for his work and the work of the professionals he retained to assist him in the resolution of this matter for the period from April 1, 2024 through June 30, 2024, as well as certain fees that were held back from the Receiver’s first three Quarterly Fee Applications. (Id.) On September 25, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Receiver’s Motion be granted. (Dkt. 1229) No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline to do so 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); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 1229), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order.

2. The Receiver’s Unopposed Eighteenth Quarterly Fee Application for Order Awarding Fees and Reimbursement of Costs to Receiver and His Professionals, (Dkt. 1210), is GRANTED.

3. Fees and costs shall be awarded in the following amounts: a. The Receiver, in the amount of $75,283.94; b. G&P, in the amount of $17,550.00; c. JND, in the amount of $24,730.14; d. Jared J. Perez, P.A., in the amount of $7,420.00; e. Yip, in the amount of $833.00; f. PDR, in the amount of $19,818.66; g. E-Hounds, in the amount of $6,945.00; h. Omni, in the amount of $17,394.65; and i. RWJ, in the amount of $1,341.00.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 22nd day of November 2024.

MARY\S_SGRIVEN Copies furnished to: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person