GRAJEDA
v.
VERIFIED MOVING PROS, 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.
In this employment class action, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and granted in part plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs, awarding $87,489.75 in attorney's fees and $1,274.55 in costs.
The court granted plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs in part, awarding $87,489.75 in attorney's fees and $1,274.55 in costs, while denying the remainder of the request.
“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 85] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes the standard for adopting a magistrate judge's report when no timely objections are filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrea Grajeda brought a class action suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Verified Moving Pros, LLC and Donald Lina indivi…
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.
CASE NO: 0:22-cv-61471-WPD
ANDREA GRAJEDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s), v. VERIFIED MOVING PROS, LLC, and DONALD LINA, individually,
Defendants. /
ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs [DE 80] (the “Motion”) and the May 2, 2024 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 85]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 85] 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 85] 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 85] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 85] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs [DE 80] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and 3. Plaintiffs are hereby awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $87,489.75 and costs in the amount of $1,274.55. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 17th day of May, 2024. fl } “a 4 : “t jf f ? f yf Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af
CA KAAYAA AVY EINE
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies to: Magistrate Judge Hunt Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)