Sos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 282

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 223 Motion for Attorneys' Fees; adopting in part 244 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Objection 247 to the aforementioned 244 Report and Recommendations is SUSTAINED IN PART. Defe ndant's Amended Objection 248 to 244 Report and Recommendations is OVERRULED. The Court's Order 256 is VACATED IN PART to the extent outlined in this Order. The Court's Order for Final Judgment 261 and the Final Judgment 262 are VACATED. The Court awards attorney's fees in the amount of $2,394,192.00 to Plaintiff. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 5/13/2024. (REG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ANTHONY SOS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-890-PGB-LHP

STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

/
ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the following filings:
1.

Plaintiff Anthony Sos’ (“Plaintiff”) Verified Motion for Attorneys’
Fees (Doc. 223 (the “Motion for Attorneys’ Fees”)), Defendant
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“Defendant”)
response in opposition (Doc. 231), Plaintiff’s reply (Doc. 234), and
Defendant’s sur-reply (Doc. 238);

2.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding the
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 244 (the “Report”)), Plaintiff’s
Objection (Doc. 247 (the “Plaintiff’s Objection”)), Defendant’s
Amended Objection (Doc. 248 (the “Defendant’s Objection”)),
Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc.
250), Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Objection

(Doc. 252), and this Court’s March 19, 2021 Order adopting the
Report in part (Doc. 256);
3.

This Court’s April 21, 2021 Order for Entry of Final Judgment (Doc.
261) and the Final Judgment (Doc. 262); and

4.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ Opinion (Doc. 270) and
Mandate (Doc. 271).

I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Factual Background

Although this case has a complex procedural history, the issues presently
before the Court are limited and concern only the amount of attorney’s fees
awarded to Plaintiff by the Court. (See generally Doc. 270). The pertinent
allegations in this case are as follows. On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff was driving
his leased vehicle, a Lexus sedan (the “Vehicle”), when he was involved in an
automobile accident. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 6–8). The Vehicle was insured by Defendant, with
whom Plaintiff filed a claim following the accident. (Id. ¶¶ 9–10). Defendant
determined that Plaintiff’s Vehicle was a covered “total loss” under the terms of the
insurance policy, and thus, Defendant purported to compensate Plaintiff for the
actual cash value of the Vehicle. (See id. ¶¶ 11–15). However, Defendant failed to
include in this payment the cost of sales tax and of state and local regulatory fees
that would necessarily be incurred in replacing the Vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 12–16, 37–38).
Consequently, Plaintiff filed a putative class action, alleging Defendant had
breached its insurance contract with Plaintiff and with similarly situated insureds.

2

(Id. ¶¶ 32, 37–38). More specifically, the putative class contained members who
had also insured their leased vehicles with Defendant, had suffered a total loss, and
had received payments by Defendant that did not include payment for the
aforementioned taxes and fees. (Id. ¶ 32).
Ultimately, while Plaintiff’s request for class certification (Doc. 70)
remained pending, the Court entered an Order holding Plaintiff was entitled to
summary judgment as to both liability and damages for his individual breach of
contract claim. (Doc. 159). The Court subsequently certified a class of Florida
insureds who were similarly situated to Plaintiff. (Doc. 181). Soon after, the Court
granted Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment as to liability and damages for
the class members’ claims. (Doc. 214). Importantly, in setting forth the class
members’ damages, the Court found that each class member was entitled to
attorney’s fees. (Id. at p. 22).
B.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report Addressing Amount of
Attorney’s Fees

Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price issued a Report addressing the
appropriate calculation of individual class members’ damages. 1 (Id.). The Court
later entered a Scheduling Order pertaining to this ruling and set forth deadlines
for the parties to brief the remaining issues in the case, including as to attorney’s
fees. (See Doc. 218). Pursuant to this Scheduling Order, Plaintiff filed its Motion
for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 223), Defendant responded in opposition (Doc. 231), and
1

Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman legally changed her name during the pendency of this case.
Accordingly, herein, the Court refers to the Magistrate Judge by her new legal name.

3

Plaintiff replied (Doc. 234). With the Magistrate Judge’s leave, Defendant also filed
a sur-reply (Docs. 236, 238). The Magistrate Judge also held a hearing on the issue
of attorney’s fees. (See Docs. 240, 241, 242).
Importantly, in Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Plaintiff sought an
award of $4,415,351.00 in attorney’s fees along with prejudgment interest on this
award. (Doc. 223, pp. 23–24). Specifically, in arriving at this figure, Plaintiff
sought the following hourly rates for the members of Plaintiff’s legal team:
Name
Christopher Lynch
Edmund Normand
Jacob Phillips
Alex Couch
Janna Sherwood
Michelle Montecalvo

Position
Partner
Partner
Associate Attorney
Associate Attorney
Paralegal
Paralegal

Hourly Rate
$ 900.00
$ 800.00
$ 458.00
$ 458.00
$ 225.00
$ 195.00

(Id. at p. 12; see Doc. 223-5, p. 18). In support of Plaintiff’s requested fees, Plaintiff
attached, among other documents, the Declaration of Plaintiff’s fee expert, John
Yanchunis (“Plaintiff’s fee expert”), who opined that the proposed hourly rates
were reasonable. (See Doc. 223-5). Plaintiff also requested a 2.5 multiplier on the
attorney’s fee award and applied that multiplier in arriving at its proposed total
award. (Doc. 223, pp. 22, 24).
Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Hoffman Price issued a Report recommending
that the instant Court award Plaintiff $2,983,500.00 in attorney’s fees, plus
prejudgment interest running from July 8, 2020. (Doc. 244, p. 55). The Magistrate
Judge used the federal lodestar analysis to arrive at this figure. (See, e.g., id. at pp.
7–8). Importantly, Magistrate Judge Hoffman Price identified the “Central

4

Florida” market as the relevant market to consider when determining the
reasonable hourly rates for the members of Plaintiff’s legal team. (See, e.g., id. at
pp. 13–14, 17–18).
Consequently, in issuing the Report, the Magistrate Judge assigned little
weight to Plaintiff’s fee expert’s opinions regarding reasonable hourly rates, in part
because Plaintiff’s fee expert: (1) had failed to provide support concerning similar
fees that had been awarded in the Middle District of Florida in similar cases, and
(2) had relied heavily upon national references in reaching his opinion. (See, e.g.,
id. at p. 14; see also id. at pp. 16–17 (discounting the relevance of Plaintiff’s citation
to hourly rates that were awarded to attorneys in a Southern District of Florida
case and reasoning that “the relevant market is . . . the Middle District of
Florida[.]”)). Further, although Plaintiff did cite to three awards of attorney’s fees
entered in the Middle District of Florida, the Magistrate Judge found that these
awards were also entitled to little weight, as they were entered pursuant to
settlement agreements and were thus unopposed. (See id. at pp. 15–16).
Additionally, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff had failed to provide any
evidence regarding Plaintiff’s paralegals’ professional histories in support of
Plaintiff’s proposed hourly rates for these paralegals. (Id. at pp. 21–22).
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge relied upon her knowledge and
experience in recommending the following hourly rates for the members of
Plaintiff’s legal team:

5

Hourly
Name
Rate
Hours 2
Lodestar
Christopher Lynch
$550.00
466.9
$256,795.00
Edmund Normand
$550.00
827.4
$455,070.00
Jacob Phillips
$350.00
1225.7
$428,995.00
Alex Couch
$250.00
118.0
$29,500.00
Janna Sherwood
$150.00
92.4
$13,860.00
Michelle Montecalvo $150.00
61.2
$9,180.00
Total Lodestar: $1,193,400.00
(Id. at pp. 18–20, 21 (collecting cases involving comparable fee awards in the
Middle District of Florida)). Finally, Magistrate Judge Hoffman Price determined
that Plaintiff’s success was unlikely at the outset of the case. (Id. at p. 46). She thus
applied a 2.5 multiplier in arriving at her total fee award of $2,983,500.00. (Id.).
Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report (Docs. 247, 248), and each responded to the other’s Objection (Docs. 250,
252). Importantly, in Plaintiff’s Objection, Plaintiff argued that the Court was not
required to totally disregard the hourly rates commanded by attorneys outside of
Central Florida in arriving at a “reasonable hourly rate” for Plaintiff’s counsel here.
(See, e.g., Doc. 247, pp. 5–14 (noting that Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm is “perhaps the
only consumer class action firm in Orlando,” and citing persuasive authority
demonstrating how courts have dealt with the “lack of an identifiable market,”

2

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge was required to determine the number of hours
reasonably expended by each member of Plaintiff’s legal team. (See Doc. 244, pp. 22–37). She
recommended that the instant Court adopt the number of hours for each legal professional as
they appear in this table. (See id. at pp. 37—38). The instant Court did adopt this portion of
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and, on appeal, this portion of the Court’s Order was affirmed
by the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc. 256, pp. 16–17; Doc. 270, pp. 57–58). Accordingly, the number
of hours reasonably expended by the members of Plaintiff’s legal team in prosecuting the case
are not at issue on remand.

6

including by considering, in various ways, markets outside of the immediate
geographic area)).
C.

This Court’s Order Adopting the Report in Part and the
Court’s Entry of Final Judgment for Plaintiff

On March 19, 2021, this Court, in large part, adopted and confirmed the
Magistrate Judge’s Report. (Doc. 256). However, the Court also found the
arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Objection regarding the relevance of outside
geographic markets in arriving at reasonable hourly rates to be persuasive. (Id. at
pp. 5–7). Consequently, unlike the Magistrate Judge, the Court found that the
opinions of Plaintiff’s fee expert were credible evidence that could be used in
support of the requested hourly rates. (See id.). The Court also disagreed with the
Magistrate Judge’s decision to discount the Middle District of Florida fee awards
that were cited by Plaintiff in the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Id. at pp. 6–8
(finding that, although these fee awards were the result of negotiated settlements,
this actually “bolster[ed] . . . the reasonableness of the requested fees,” since the
rates awarded “represent what opposing counsel considered to be reasonable—and
what their client was willing to pay.”)). The Court therefore determined that
Plaintiff’s attorneys were entitled to higher hourly rates than the rates
recommended by the Magistrate Judge. (See id. at pp. 16–17).
The Court also increased the hourly rates for Plaintiff’s paralegals, this time
citing (1) additional evidence provided by Plaintiff following the issuance of the
Report regarding their professional histories; and (2) evidence of prior paralegal

7

fee awards entered in the Middle District of Florida that supported the increased
hourly rates. (Id. at pp. 10–11).
As a result of the foregoing, this Court found the following rates to be
reasonable for the respective members of Plaintiff’s legal team:
Hourly
Name
Rate
Hours
Lodestar
Christopher Lynch
$800.00
466.9
$373,520.00
Edmund Normand
$800.00
827.4
$661,920.00
Jacob Phillips
$458.00
1225.7
$561,370.60
Alex Couch
$458.00
118.0
$54,044.00
Janna Sherwood
$190.00
92.4
$17,556.00
Michelle Montecalvo $180.00
61.2
$11,016.00
Total Lodestar: $1,679,426.60
(Id. at p. 16). The Court further agreed with the Magistrate Judge that a 2.5
multiplier was appropriate, and thus applied this multiplier to reach a total fee
award of $4,198,566.50, plus prejudgment interest on this amount running from
July 8, 2020. (Id. at p. 17).
Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered for Plaintiff and the class
members pursuant to the Court’s Orders in this case, including the Court’s ruling
regarding the proper amount of attorney’s fees. (Docs. 261, 262). Defendant
appealed the entry of the Final Judgment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
citing a host of grounds it alleged warranted reversal. (See Doc. 263).
D.

The Eleventh Circuit’s Opinion and Mandate

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit upheld a multitude of rulings made by the
Court in the case, including, inter alia, its decisions to certify the class, to enter
summary judgment for the class members, to award prejudgment interest on

8

Plaintiff’s award, to award attorney’s fees to Plaintiff, to apply a multiplier to that
award, and its decision regarding the reasonable number of hours expended by
Plaintiff’s legal team in prosecuting the case. (Doc. 270, pp. 3–4, 52–54, 57, 59).
However, the Eleventh Circuit also found that the Court erred in two ways in
calculating the amount of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. (Id. at p. 4).
First, the Eleventh Circuit found that, in setting the hourly rate in this case,
the relevant market to consider is the Central Florida market. (Id. at p. 56). The
Eleventh Circuit further noted that, in setting the hourly rates for Plaintiff’s legal
team, this Court rejected the Magistrate Judge’s proposed rates, in part, because
the Court found that commercial class action law is “sufficiently specialized that it
should be considered a national market.” (Id. at p. 57 (internal quotation marks
omitted)). The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that it was “unclear to what extent”
the instant Court considered a national market in setting these hourly rates, noting
that the Court had also cited to previous awards in the Middle District in making
its ruling. (Id.). Still, the Eleventh Circuit found that “even if the . . . hourly
determination was based entirely on these prior awards” in Central Florida, this
would require reversal, as “[c]ourts applying the lodestar approach are prohibited
from giving ‘controlling weight to prior awards.’” (Id. at pp. 57–58 (citing Dillard
v. City of Greensboro, 213 F.3d 1347, 1355 (11th Cir. 2000))).
Second, the Eleventh Circuit held that a 2.5 multiplier was too generous
here, as it disagreed with the instant Court and with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff’s “success was unlikely at the outset of the case.” (Id. at p. 58 (quoting

9

Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990) (internal
quotation marks omitted))). However, the Eleventh Circuit also found that the
record did support the instant Court’s “decision to reject the smallest multiplier of
1 or 1.5,” since success was also not likely at the outset of the case. (Id. at p. 60).
As a result of these findings, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the Final
Judgment in part and remanded so that this Court may recalculate Plaintiff’s
award of attorney’s fees in light of its guidance. (Docs. 270, 271).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Florida follows the federal lodestar approach to calculating the amount of

attorney’s fees to be awarded to a party. Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders,
Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1148 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). “The starting
point in fashioning an award of attorney’s fees is to multiply the number of hours
reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate” to arrive at a “lodestar” amount.
Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (citing
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). In applying the lodestar analysis,
the party seeking fees has the burden of establishing that the hourly rate and the
hours expended are reasonable. See Norman v. Housing Auth. of the City of
Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988).
Under the lodestar method, a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney is “the
prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by
lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation.” Norman,
836 F.2d at 1299; see also Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1396 (11th Cir.

10

1996). The “relevant market” is “the place where the case is filed.” Am. Civ.
Liberties Union of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 437 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting
Cullens v. Ga. Dep’t. of Transp., 29 F.3d 1489, 1494 (11th Cir. 1994)). To establish
that the requested hourly rate is consistent with the prevailing market rate, the fee
applicant must produce “satisfactory evidence” that “speak[s] to rates actually
billed and paid in similar lawsuits.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299. This requires
“more than the affidavit of the attorney performing the work,” and generally
includes evidence of the rates charged by lawyers in similar circumstances, or
opinion evidence of reasonable rates. Id.
In determining an appropriate hourly rate, the Florida Supreme Court has
held that courts should look to the following factors (the “Rowe factors”): (1) the
skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood that
undertaking the case would preclude other employment; (3) the fee customarily
charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved; (5) the
time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and
length of the professional relationship with the client; and (7) the experience,
reputation, and ability of the lawyers performing the services. Joyce v. Federated
Nat’l Ins., 228 So. 3d 1122, 1126 (Fla. 2017) (citing Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v.
Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1150 (Fla. 1985)). The Court may also rely on its own
knowledge and experience of the prevailing market rate in fashioning an
appropriate fee award. See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299–1300, 1303. However,
“[t]he going rate in the community is the most critical factor in setting the fee rate.”

11

Taylor Newman Cabinetry, Inc. v. Classic Soft Trim, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-1445, 2012
WL 695670, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2012) (citing Martin v. Univ. of S. Ala., 911
F.2d 604, 610 (11th Cir. 1990)).
Once the trial court arrives at a proper “lodestar” amount, it may consider
whether a contingency fee multiplier on this amount is warranted. Joyce, 228 So.
3d at 1126. In insurance disputes, Florida courts consider the following three
factors in making this determination:
(1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee
multiplier to obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the
attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any
way; and (3) whether any of the factors in Rowe are
applicable, especially, the amount involved, the results
obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the
attorney and his client.

Id. at 1128 (internal quotation omitted). “Evidence of these factors must be
presented to justify the utilization of a multiplier.” Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d at 834.
Moreover, if success at the outset of litigation was “more likely than not,” the
proper multiplier is 1 to 1.5; if it is “approximately even,” the proper multiplier is
1.5 to 2.0; and if it is unlikely, the proper multiplier is 2.0 to 2.5. Id.
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Reasonable Hourly Rates

On remand, and in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s mandate in this matter,
this Court adopts and confirms in its entirety the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in the
Report concerning the reasonable hourly rates for the legal fees in this case (Doc.
244, pp. 8–22), with two discrete exceptions.

12

First, the Court reasserts its finding that the Middle District of Florida fee
awards cited by Plaintiff in support of Plaintiff’s proposed hourly rates 3 should not
be disregarded solely because these fee awards were the results of negotiated
settlements. (See Doc. 223, pp. 13–14; Doc. 247, pp. 5–6; Doc. 256, pp. 7–8).
However, on remand, and upon careful reconsideration of the matter, the Court
does find that the absence of any discussion or analysis regarding the factors that
made these fees reasonable in Plaintiff’s cited cases renders these fee awards of
limited value in determining the appropriate hourly rates here. (See Jackson, Case
No. 6:16-cv-210-Orl-40DAB, Doc. 157; Preman, Case No. 6:16-cv-443-Orl-41GJK,
Doc. 71; Cook, Case No. 6:17-cv-891-Orl-40KRS, Doc. 215). The Court additionally
notes that these cases were common fund cases wherein counsel merely utilized a
lodestar analysis to conduct a “cross-check” on the proposed award, which
distinguishes them from the case at bar. (See Jackson, Case No. 6:16-cv-210-Orl40DAB, Doc. 153, pp. 17–20; Preman, Case No. 6:16-cv-443-Orl-41GJK, Doc. 69,
pp. 16–19; Cook, Case No. 6:17-cv-891-Orl-40KRS, Doc. 210, pp. 22–24).
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommended hourly rates
for each of Plaintiff’s attorneys and finds that the hourly rates of $550.00 for Mr.
Normand, $550.00 for Mr. Lynch, $350 for Mr. Phillips, and $250 for Mr. Couch
are reasonable. (See Doc. 244, p. 20).

3

This included the attorney’s fee awards in Jackson v. Wendy’s Int’l LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv210-Orl-40DAB (M.D. Fla. 2019); Preman v. Pollo Operations, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-443Orl-41GJK (M.D. Fla. 2018); and Cook v. Gov’t Emp. Ins. Co., Case No. 6:17-cv-891-Orl40KRS (M.D. Fla. 2020).

13

Secondly, this Court finds that the Eleventh Circuit’s Opinion in this case
need not disturb the hourly rates that this Court previously found to be reasonable
for each of Plaintiff’s paralegals. Unlike the Court’s analysis of the hourly rates for
the attorneys in this case, in arriving at the paralegal’s hourly rates, the Court
expressly considered previous paralegal awards from the Middle District of Florida
and did not consider such awards from outside this District. (See Doc. 256, pp. 10–
11 (internal citations omitted)).
Consequently, this Court does not alter its finding that $190 per hour is a
reasonable fee for Ms. Janna Sherwood (“Ms. Sherwood”)—a certified paralegal
with more than thirty-five years of experience who has served as a paralegal in
diverse and complex practice areas. (See Doc. 247-2). This award is supported by
other fee awards for paralegals in the Middle District of Florida, which is the most
important factor in determining the reasonableness of the fee. See TemPay Inc. v.
Biltres Staffing of Tampa Bay, LLC, No. 8:11-cv-2732, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
158724, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2013) (finding $190 per hour was a reasonable
rate for a paralegal with twenty years’ experience more than ten years ago); Hill v.
Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 6:14-cv-950-Orl-41KRS, 2018 WL 6983647, at
*3–4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2018) (finding $190 per hour was a reasonable rate for
two paralegals based upon their years of experience, where one paralegal had
twenty-seven years of experience and the other paralegal had thirty-seven years of
experience); Glob. Fin., LLC v. Pay Pro Card Corp., No. 8:07-CV-0029, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 114805, at *6 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2008) (finding that $170.00 and

14

$190.00 were reasonable hourly rates for work performed by paralegals in 2007
and 2008), report and recommendation adopted, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88574
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2008)); Taylor Newman Cabinetry, 2012 WL 695670, at *5
(citing Martin, 911 F.2d at 610) (identifying the “going rate in the community” as
the most important factor in the Court’s analysis).
However, upon careful reconsideration of the matter, this Court finds that a
reduction of the $180.00 hourly rate that it previously awarded for Ms. Michelle
Montecalvo (“Ms. Montecalvo”) is warranted. (See Doc. 256, p. 16). Ms.
Montecalvo does have an impressively varied skillset. (See Doc. 247-3). She
obtained her paralegal certificate from Duke University and has recently focused
her paralegal work in the class action field. (Id.). She also has a bachelor’s degree
in English and, prior to entering the legal field, spent years serving as a medical
transcriptionist. (See id.).
Nonetheless, at the time of the Court’s prior Order, Ms. Montecalvo had only
acquired approximately five years of experience as a paralegal. (See id.; Doc. 256).
Paralegal fee awards in this District that fall towards the higher end of the
spectrum have generally been reserved for paralegals with decades of experience
in the legal field. See, e.g., TemPay, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158724, at *5; Hill, 2018
WL 6983647, at *3–4. Thus, upon this opportunity to reconsider the matter, this
Court reduces Ms. Montecalvo’s hourly rate to the rate of $150.00 per hour, as was
recommended by the Magistrate Judge in the Report. (Doc. 244, pp. 20–22).

15

The Court also seeks to make clear that it does not base the paralegals’ hourly
rates entirely upon the prior awards it considers from this District. Instead, the
Court considered these awards together with its own knowledge and experience as
well as its consideration of the applicable Rowe factors in the context of the instant
case. See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299–1300, 1303; Joyce, 228 So. 3d at 1126 (citing
Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1150). Thus, in addition to finding the awarded hourly rates
are supported by prior awards in the Central Florida community, the Court
specifically notes that these rates are commensurate with the complexity of this
case, the skill required to bring this case to a successful conclusion, and the
substantial amount in controversy in this matter. See Joyce, 228 So. 3d at 1126
(citing Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1150).
B.

The Contingency Fee Multiplier

The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed that a contingency fee multiplier is
warranted in this case and has further affirmed the Court’s decision to reject a
multiplier of 1.5 as too low. (See Doc. 270, pp. 60–63). However, the Eleventh
Circuit also held that this Court’s application of a 2.5 multiplier was too generous
here. (Id.). In accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s findings, a multiplier of 2.0
is appropriate and will be applied to the lodestar amount in this case. (See id.);
Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d at 834.

16

IV.

CONCLUSION
To summarize, in light of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ Opinion and

Mandate in this case (Docs. 270, 271), the Court provides the following table of
compensable fees:
Name
Christopher Lynch
Edmund Normand
Jacob Phillips
Alex Couch
Janna Sherwood
Michelle Montecalvo

Hourly
Hours Rate
466.9 $550.00
827.4 $550.00
1225.7 $350.00
118 $250.00
92.4 $190.00
61.2 $150.00
Total Lodestar:

Lodestar
$256,795.00
$455,070.00
$428,995.00
$29,500.00
$17,556.00
$9,180.00
$1,197,096.00

Further, the Court will apply a contingency fee multiplier of 2.0 to the total lodestar
amount, resulting in a total recovery of $2,394,192.00. The Court finds that this
award is reasonable and appropriate under the lodestar method, applicable Florida
jurisprudence, Florida Statute § 627.428, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(h).
For these reasons, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Court’s March 19, 2021 Order (Doc. 256) is VACATED IN PART
to the extent outlined in this Order;

2.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 244) is ADOPTED AND
CONFIRMED IN PART and made a part of this Order;

3.

Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 247) is SUSTAINED IN PART;

4.

Defendant’s Amended Objection (Doc. 248) is OVERRULED;

17

5.

Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 223) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent
outlined in this Order. Accordingly, this Court awards attorney’s fees
in the amount of $2,394,192.00. 4

6.

The Court’s April 21, 2021 Order for Final Judgment (Doc. 261) and
the Final Judgment (Doc. 262) are VACATED so that the Court may
address the amount of appellate attorney’s fees, if any, that should be
awarded in this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 13, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

4

The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed this Court’s finding that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment
interest on this award. (Doc. 270, p. 6). Accordingly, such interest shall be included in the
Final Judgment in this case.

18