Federal Trade Commission v. MOBE Ltd. et al

Filing 215

ORDER adopting 207 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 175 Verified Second Application for Payment for Services Rendered filed by Mark J. Bernet, 176 Verified Second Application for Payment for Services Rendered and Reimbursement for Costs Incurred by Akerman LLP. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/9/2019. (ctp)(JLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:18-cv-862-Orl-37DCI

MOBE LTD.;
MOBEPROCESSING.COM, INC.;
TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT
USA, INC.; MOBETRAINING.COM,
INC.; 9336-0311 QUEBEC INC.; MOBE
PRO LIMITED; MOBE INC.; MOBE
ONLINE LTD.; MATT LLOYD
PUBLISHING.COM PTY LTD.;
MATTHEW LLOYD MCPHEE; SUSAN
ZANGHI; and INGRID WHITNEY,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) initiated this action against
Defendants on June 4, 2018, seeking injunctive and equitable relief for violations of the
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). (See Doc. 1.) After the Court appointed
a Receiver (Doc. 13), the Receiver moved to recover a first round of expenses for services
rendered and reimbursement for costs for himself and his hired counsel. (Doc. 92 (“First
Receiver Fee Motion”); Doc. 93 (“First Akerman Fee Motion”).) The Court granted the
First Receiver Fee Motion and granted in part and denied in part the First Akerman Fee
Motion. (Doc. 114.) Now, the Receiver seeks a second round of payments for services
rendered and reimbursement for costs incurred by the Receiver and his hired counsel,
-1-

Akerman LLP (“Akerman”). (See Doc. 175 (“Second Receiver Fee Motion”); Doc. 176
(“Second Akerman Fee Motion”).) Specifically, the Receiver requests $101,541.00 in fees.
(Doc. 92, p. 1.) Additionally, the Receiver requests the authority to pay Akerman
$59,690.00 in fees and to reimburse Akerman $1,378.91 for costs incurred. (Doc. 93, p. 1.)
On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick concludes that the fees for the
Receiver are fair and reasonable. (Doc. 207, pp. 4–5 (“R&R”).) However, given the lack of
information to justify Akerman’s requested hourly rates, Magistrate Judge Irick used his
own experience and expertise to conclude that a lower fee, $49,802.50, was more
appropriate, but took no issue with Akerman’s cost request. (Id. at 5–8.) With this, he
recommends granting the Second Receiver Fee Motion and granting in part and denying
in part the Second Akerman Fee Motion. (Id. at 8–9.)
The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed.
Absent objections, the Court has examined the R&R only for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016);
see also Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding no such error,
the Court concludes that the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
207) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.

2.

Receiver’s Verified Second Application for Payment for Services Rendered
(Doc. 175) is GRANTED. The Receiver is authorized to receive payment in
the amount of $101,541.00 in fees.
-2-

3.

Receiver’s Verified Second Application for Payment for Services Rendered
and Reimbursement for Costs Incurred by Akerman LLP (Doc. 176) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:
a. The Second Akerman Fee Motion is GRANTED to the extent the
Receiver is authorized to pay Akerman LLP $49,802.50 in fees and
$1,378.91 in expenses.
b. The Second Akerman Fee Motion is DENIED in all other respects.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 9, 2019.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-