NORTHSTAR MOVING HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
v.
NORTHSTAR MOVERS, 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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees, and the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending an award. No objections were filed to the report.…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff NorthStar Moving Holding Company, Inc. d.b.a. NorthStar Moving and NorthStar Movers (“NorthStar” or “Plaintiff”)’s Verified Motion for the Court’s Determination of the Amount of Attorneys’ Fees Per Local Rule 7.3(b) [DE 288], Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for the Court’s Determination of the Amount of Attorneys’ Fees Per Local Rule 7.3(b) Awarded Against Defendant King David Van Lines [DE 289] and Magistrate Judge Hunt’s August 26, 2022 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 344]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 344] 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 344] 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 344] 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 344] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Verified Motion for the Court’s Determination of the Amount of Attorneys’ Fees Per Local Rule 7.3(b) [DE 288] and Plaintiff's Verified Motion for the Court’s Determination of the Amount of Attorneys’ Fees Per Local Rule 7.3(b) Awarded Against Defendant King David Van Lines [DE 289] are GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff is hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $742,928.05. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 12th day of September, 2022.
} fe « ? fmf ff og
LLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies to: Judge Hunt Counsel of Record
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)