MOUSE ON THA TRACK, LLC
v.
CELCIUS NIGHTCLUB, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees and costs, and the Magistrate Judge recommended awarding $11,374.25 in fees and $1,914.13 in costs. No party obje…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion Regarding Reasonableness of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. 21) and United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23). Judge Dudek recommends awarding Plaintiffs $11,374.25 in attorney's fees and $1,914.13 in costs. No party objected, so the matter is ripe for review.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part," the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don't object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain"; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F. 3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. It accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation to the extent it grants fees and costs. The Court need not strike the Proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. 22) as it substantiates the partial costs incurred by Plaintiff.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Reasonableness of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. 21) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiffs are awarded $11,374.25 in attorney's fees and $1,914.13 in costs.
2
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to amend the judgment to include the above figures.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 19, 2024.
SherPolster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)