OLIVEIRA
v.
RODRIGUES

M.D. Fla. | 2021-06-04
No. 6:19-cv-334
District Court, M.D. Florida (2021)

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.


Holding

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in part and denying it in part, and directs the Clerk to enter judgment for Plaintiff on Counts I and II.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff moved for default judgment against all defendants. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. No o…

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.


Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against All Defendants (Doc. 41). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51), recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, (id. at 9). After review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and noting that no objections were timely filed, the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition is accepted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) is ADOPTED and made

a part of this Order. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment Against All Defendants (Doc. 41) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. The Motion is GRANTED as to Counts I and H. b. On or before June 18, 2021, Plaintiff may file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

c. The Motion is otherwise DENIED. 3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants for Counts I and IT in the amount of $110,277.00. 4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.! DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 4, 2021.

| CARLOS E. MENDOZA |

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party
Footnotes
1 The Court retains jurisdiction to determine an award of attorney’s fees. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc. v. Soil Tech Distribs., 270 F. App’x 962, 965 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[I]t 1s clear that an award of attorney’s fees is a collateral matter over which a court normally retains jurisdiction even after being divested of Jurisdiction on the merits.” (citation omitted)).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw