FRANGOPOU
v.
SAQUELLA CAFE 2024, 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 for the Southern District of Florida adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against defendants for a total of $21,002.15. No party objected to the magistrate judge's recommendations, so the court reviewed for clear error only and found none.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety, granting in part and denying in part the motion for default judgment, and entered default judgment against all three defendants jointly and severally in the total amount of $21,002.15, distributed among the four plaintiffs.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for objecting to a magistrate judge's report, which neither party met in this case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Dean Argus Frangopoulos, Pierre Yves LeClef, Stanislav Sidorov, and Cashley Jordan Hiller-Acosta filed a verified motion for default judgme…
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 De Novo Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch for a report and recommendation on the Plaintiffs' Verified Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 17] ("the Motion"). Judge Augustin-Birch has since issued a Report and Recommendation (“the R&R”), recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 21]. Neither party has filed any objections to the R&R and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R in its entirety.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch's report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds that Judge Augustin-Birch's report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. There is no error whatsoever, let alone clear error. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' Verified Motion for Default Judgment.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R [ECF No. 21] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. The Plaintiffs' Verified Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 17] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. Default judgment is entered against Defendants Saquella Cafe 2024, LLC, Wolf Restaurant Group LLC, and Leopold Balestrieri, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $21,002.15. This total amount consists of an award of $15,727.55 to Plaintiff Dean Argus Frangopoulos, an award of $2,266.34 to Plaintiff Pierre Yves LeClef, an award of $1,459.26 to Plaintiff Stanislav Sidorov, and an award of $1,549 to Plaintiff Cashley Jordan Hiller-Acosta.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 9, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record