MARAIST LAW FIRM
v.
COATES
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 accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the motion for attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs objected to a magistrate judge's report recommending that Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees be granted in part and denied in part. The…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
and ASHFORD TRS LESSEE II, LLC.,
Defendants. /
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 156]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (the “Report”) [ECF No. 156], filed on November 30, 2022. On April 20, 2022, Defendant Nantucket Enterprises, Inc. filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 127]. On November 29, 2022, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 156 pp. 1, 32]. On December 6, 2022, Defendants Nantucket Enterprises, Timothy Schulz, Palm Beach Florida Hotel and Office Building Limited Partnership, and Ashford TRS Lessee, II LLC filed Notices of Non-Objection to the Report [ECF Nos. 157, 158]. On December 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report [ECF No. 159], and Defendant Nantucket Enterprises filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 160].1
reviews de novo 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 156], Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 159], Defendant Nantucket Enterprises’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 160], and the full record in this case. Upon review of the foregoing materials, including
the authority and analysis provided in Plaintiffs’ Objections, the Court finds Judge Reinhart’s Report to be well-reasoned and correct. Defendant Nantucket Enterprises’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 127] is therefore GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 156 pp. 7–32]. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 156] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 127] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
[ECF No. 161], which the Court subsequently struck [ECF No. 162]. CASE NO. 21-81467-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
a. Defendant Nantucket Enterprises, Inc. shall be awarded a total of $46,747.80, consisting of $46,500.34 in attorneys’ fees and $247.46 in costs. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 30th day of January 2023. : AILEEN(M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)