ANGE'S AUTO REPAIR SERVICE, INC.
v.
CENTURY SURETY COMPANY
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 adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to impose a sanction under Fla. Stat. § 768.79.
Defendant moved for attorney's fees and costs, and the Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part, imposing a sanction of $15,894.93 und…
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 Defendant's Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees and Fee Expert Costs (Doc. 60) and United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62). Judge Mizell recommends that Defendant's motion be granted in part and that the Court should impose a Fla. Stat. § 768.79 sanction in the amount of $15,894.93 and direct the clerk to enter an amended judgment in Defendant's favor for this amount.
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 in full.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62) is АССЕРTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Defendant's Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees and Fee Expert Costs (Doc. 60) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. The Court imposes a Fla. Stat. § 768.79 sanction in the amount of $15,894.93. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter an amended judgment in favor of Defendants in the amount of $15,894.93.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 1, 2024.
SherPolster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
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)