BRAVO
v.
IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
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 adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting attorney's fees and costs against the plaintiff but denying them against her attorney.
The defendant moved for attorney's fees and costs. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part against the plaintiff but denying it a…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Sean P. Flynn, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 9, 2022. (Doc. 97). Judge Flynn recommends that “Defendant I.Q. Data International’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 73) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Flynn recommends that the motion be granted as to Plaintiff Lucia Bravo and denied as to attorney Jon P. Dubbeld. Judge Flynn further recommends that Attorney Dubbeld’s request for an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in defending the motion be denied. No objection was filed, and the time to object 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); 718 F. 2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Flynn’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Flynn’s well-reasoned factual findings and conclusions. Consequently, Consequently, the motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs is granted as to Plaintiff Lucia Bravo and denied as to Attorney Jon P. Dubbeld. Attorney Dubbeld’s request for an award of reasonable expenses in defending the motion is denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Flynn’s report and recommendation (Doc. 97) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) “Defendant I.Q. Data International’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 73) is hereby GRANTED as to Plaintiff Lucia Bravo and DENIED as to Attorney Jon P. Dubbeld. (3) Attorney Dubbeld’s request for an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in defending the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) is DENIED. (3) Defendant IQ Data is directed to supplement its motion regarding the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees it expended responding to Plaintiffs complaint in compliance with Local Rule 7.01(c). DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 30th day of August, 2022.
* * * * *
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983)