BELL
v.
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL BOCA, 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.
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the defendant's motion for attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff's federal claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state …
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 Frivolous, Unreasonable, Or Without Foundation Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
On June 30, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies [ECF No. 40]. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims [ECF No. 40 pp. 9–10]. Entry of final judgment in favor of Defendants followed thereafter [ECF No. 41]. Defendant FirstService Residential Boca, Inc. then filed the instant Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion”), seeking $29,361.96 in attorneys’ fees [ECF No. 42 p. 6]. The Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 43].
On October 20, 2022, Judge Reinhart issued a Report, recommending denial of the Motion [ECF No. 46 p. 8]. Objections to the Report were due on November 3, 2022 [ECF No. 46 p. 8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 46 p. 8]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation
to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court 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). Following de novo review, the Court agrees with the Report’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s
Title VII claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 46] is ACCEPTED insofar as it concludes that Defendant First Service has not meet the stringent burden to show entitlement to attorneys’ fees. No further adoption of the Report is necessary beyond the analysis limited to that conclusion. 2. The Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees filed by Defendant FirstService Residential Boca [ECF No. 42] is DENIED. CASE NO. 22-80336-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 7th day of November 2022. Cy 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)