United States of America for Stonebridge Construction Services LLC v. North American Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 212

ORDER adopting 211 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part and denying in part 183 Motion for a Determination as to Entitlement of the Parties to Attorney's Fees; denying 184 Motion to Tax Attorneys' Fees; granting in part and denying in part 188 197 Motions for Taxation of Costs and Attorney's Fees. See Order for Details. Signed by Senior Judge Brian J. Davis on 9/25/2024. (MCW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
for the use and benefit of
Stonebridge Construction Services,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:19-cv-514-BJD-PDB

NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, out of
state company,
Defendant/Third
Party Plaintiff
DEVELOPERS SURETY AND
INDEMNITY COMPANY
Third Party Defendants

/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 211; Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United
States Magistrate Judge. The Report follows entry of final judgment resolving
the merits of the case. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends the
following:
(1) granting Stonebridge’s motion, D183, to the extent
Stonebridge moves for a determination that no party
prevailed under the stipulation and Article 10 of

Artec and Stonebridge’s subcontract and otherwise
denying the motion;
(2) denying NAS’s motion for attorney’s fees under
the stipulation and Articles 5 and 10 of Artec and
Stonebridge’s subcontract, D184;
(3) granting NAS’s motions for taxation of costs,
D188, D197, to the extent NAS moves for taxable
costs, taxing costs of $10,519.12 for NAS and against
Stonebridge and Developers, entering a
corresponding judgment, and otherwise denying the
motions;
(4) granting NAS’s motion for attorney’s fees and
expenses, D197, to the extent NAS moves for a
determination that NAS is entitled to attorney’s fees
and expenses under the performance bond and
section 627.756(1) and otherwise denying the motion;
and
(5) directing the parties to follow the second part of
the bifurcated procedure in Local Rule 7.01 and
ordering NAS to file a supplemental motion with the
information required by Local Rule 7.01(c)(1)−(5)
within forty-five days of the order determining
entitlement.
Report at 56. No objections were filed, and the matter is ripe for review.
The Court “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). If no specific objections to findings of fact are filed, the district judge
is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v.
Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Further, if no objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

-2-

are filed, the district court reviews legal conclusions only for plain error and
only if necessary in the interests of justice. Shepherd v. Wilson, 663 F. App’x
813, 816 (11th Cir. 2016); see also Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App’x
542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting that under 11th Circuit Rule 3-1, the
appellant would have waived his ability to object to the district court’s final
order on a report and recommendation where appellant failed to object to
that report and recommendation). “Under plain error review, we can correct
an error only when (1) an error has occurred, (2) the error was plain, (3) the
error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Symonette v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Farley v.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Upon independent review of the entire record, the undersigned finds no
plain error in the Report’s recommendation.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
ORDERED:
1.

The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 211) as the opinion of the Court.

2.

Stonebridge’s Motion for a Determination as to Entitlement of the
Parties to Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 183) is GRANTED to the extent
Stonebridge moves for a determination that no party prevailed
-3-

under the stipulation and Article 10 of Artec and Stonebridge’s
subcontract and otherwise DENIED.
3.

NAS’s Motion to Tax Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 184) is DENIED.

4.

NAS’s Motions for Taxation of Costs and Attorney’s Fees (Docs.
188 and 197) are GRANTED to the extent NAS moves for
taxable costs, taxing costs of $10,519.12 for NAS and against
Stonebridge and Developers and to the extent NAS moves for a
determination that NAS is entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses
under the performance bond and section 627.756(1) and otherwise
DENIED.

5.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter a corresponding judgment as to
the $10,519.12 taxed as costs.

6.

The parties shall follow the second part of the bifurcated procedure
in Local Rule 7.01. NAS shall file a supplemental motion with the
information required by Local Rule 7.01(c)(1)-(5) on or before
November 13, 2024.

DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 25th day of
September 2024.

-4-

2
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-5-