DOMINGUEZ
v.
METRO PREVENTIVE PLUMBING MAINTENANCE 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.
In this employment law case, the District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting in part Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court awarded $22,720 in attorney fees and $535 in costs, plus interest and potential collection fees.
The court granted Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs in part, awarding $22,720 in attorney fees and $535 in costs, plus interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and reserving the right to award reasonable fees and costs for collection if necessary.
[1] A magistrate judge's factual findings are adopted and incorporated into a court's opinion when no timely objections are filed.
[2] A court may conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report even in the absence of objections.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 49] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes the standard for review when no objections are timely filed to a magistrate judge's report—findings are adopted automatically.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff brought an FLSA action against Metro Preventive Plumbing Maintenance Inc. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on Plainti…
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 Interest On Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and the October 25, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt [DE 49] (the “Report”).
The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 49] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 49] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 49] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 49] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [DE 45] is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $22,720, and costs in the amount of $535.00, for a total award of $23,255, which shall bear interest at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Plaintiff should also be awarded reasonable fees and costs associated with the collection of the underlying FLSA judgment and fees should collection action become necessary. b. The Motion should be otherwise DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 19th day of November 2024.
fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af C4 KAGAN AMY MEL Cn
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Hunt
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)