SILBERMAN
v.
PREMIER BEAUTY AND HEALTH 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 district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding a motion for attorney's fees in a case involving Premier Beauty and Health LLC. The court granted the motion in part, awarding plaintiffs $1,388,463.46 in reasonable attorneys' fees while denying other portions of the request.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granting plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees in part and awarding $1,388,463.46 in reasonable attorneys' fees while denying other portions of the motion.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).”
Establishes the district court's authority to review and act upon a magistrate judge's recommendation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Non-Taxable Costs on September 10, 2024. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis issued a Report on August …
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 CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis (the “Report”). [ECF No. 668].
On September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 566].
On August 13, 2025, Judge Louis issued her Report recommending the Motion be granted, in part, such that Plaintiffs be awarded $1,388,463.46 in reasonable attorneys’ fees. [ECF No. 668].
On August 21, 2025, Defendant Jorge Hane, appearing pro se, timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 671]. On September 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant’s objection. [ECF No. 673]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court has now conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Report, the Motion, Defendant’s objection, and Plaintiffs’ response. The Court agrees with Judge Louis’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted in part.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 668], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs shall be awarded $1,388,463.46 in reasonable attorneys’ fees.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 15th day of September, 2025.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)