MRAZ
v.
I.C. SYSTEMS, 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 accepted and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granting in part Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs, and denying other motions.
Plaintiff Victor Mraz moved for attorney's fees, costs, judicial notice, and sanctions. Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell recommended granting in pa…
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 Report And Recommendation (R&R) cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 110). Judge Mizell recommends granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 71). The R&R also indicates the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motions for judicial notice (Doc. 82) and sanctions (Doc. 96). Neither party timely 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 R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence
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. So it accepts and adopts the well-reasoned R&R (Doc. 110) in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 110) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Doc.
96) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 82) is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 71) is GRANTED and DENIED in part. a. Plaintiff is AWARDED $72,651.50 in attorney’s fees. b. Plaintiffis AWARDED $1,366.79 in costs.
c. Plaintiffs fees and costs award BEARS post-judgment interest (under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)) from September 5, 2019, until paid. 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant of $72,651.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,366.79 in costs, both bearing post-judgment interest from September 5, 2019, until paid. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 8, 2021.
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)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)