TECNOGLASS, LLC
v.
PAREDES
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 in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff Tecnoglass, LLC moved for attorneys' fees. A magistrate judge issued a report recommending granting the motion in part and denying it in par…
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Tecnoglass, LLC's (“Plaintiff") Amended Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees. (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (ECF No. 118). Therein, Plaintiff requests $347,609.50 in attorneys' fees. Id. at 1. The Motion was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 120) who issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 128), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection" to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general
objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge "evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that: (1) the Motion should not be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.3; (2) Defendants Building Envelope Systems, Inc. (“BES”) and Defendant RC Home Showcase, Inc. (“RC Home”) should be jointly and severally liable for the entire award of reasonable attorneys' fees; (3) an across-theboard reduction of 30 percent to the total fee award sought by Plaintiff is reasonable; and (4) accordingly, Plaintiff should be awarded $243,326.65 in reasonable attorneys' fees. See generally R&R. This Court agrees.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 128) is ADOPTED.
2
Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiff is awarded $243,326.65 in attorneys' fees.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of February, 2025.
K. M. Moore
K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record
3