PURCELLA

v.

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, ECF No. (the “Motion”).

The Court previously referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle. ECF No. . On November 13, 2019, Judge Valle issued a Report and Recommendations recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. (the “R&R”).

The recommendations reflect reductions in the hourly rate requested and the number of hours expended, which Judge Valle concluded are warranted in this case. Specifically, Judge Valle found that the Motion lacked sufficient background information regarding the experience and qualifications of the attorneys and paralegal, and the customary fee charged. Judge Valle determined that the Plaintiff’s failure to meet her burden to produce satisfactory evidence that the rate requested is in line with prevailing market rates weighed in favor of a lower hourly rate. Id. at 8-10.

Additionally, Judge Valle recommended a 10% reduction in hours for various billing inefficiencies, including vague time entries and entries for clerical and administrative tasks. Id. at 11-12. The R & R recommended compensation for 15.75 hours at reduced hourly rates of $350.00, $300.00, and $125.00 amounts for a total award of $4,963.00 in attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R, ECF No. (“Objections”), to which Defendant filed a Response, ECF No. . The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record, has conducted a de novo review of Judge Valle’s R&R in light of the Objections, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Where a proper, specific objection to the magistrate judge’s report is made, it is clear that the district court must conduct a de novo review of that issue.”). Specifically, Plaintiff objects to Judge Valle’s reduction in the hourly rate billed by the attorneys in this case.¹ Plaintiff argues that the hourly rates should not be reduced below $375.00 per hour because the law firm involved in this case has exclusively handled Florida consumer debt law since 2009.

Moreover, the Plaintiff argues that this district recently awarded two attorneys with less experience practicing law $375 per hour in an FDCPA case. The Court notes that while another attorney may have been awarded the hourly fee sought here, each case stands on its own unique facts, including the relative efforts, supporting information and experience of the involved

attorneys. Critically, the Plaintiff’s Objections fail to address Judge Valle’s ultimate determination that Plaintiff failed to meet her “burden of producing satisfactory evidence that the requested rate is in line with prevailing market rates.” Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F. 2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988). Upon review, the Court finds Judge Valle’s R&R to be well-reasoned and correct, and that Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Judge Valle’s R&R, ECF No. , is ADOPTED. 2. The Motion, ECF No. , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

3. Plaintiff is awarded a total of $4,963.00 in attorneys’ fees.

4. This case shall remain CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 5, 2019.

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of record