Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Enoch Vaughn, et al.

Filing 280

ORDER granting in part 264 Defendants' Motion for Determination of Appellate Attorney's Fees; granting in part 271 Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees; adopting 278 Report and Recommendations. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 7/30/2019. (RLH) Modified on 7/31/2019 (RLH).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DMSION
HOUSTON SPECIAL TY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No.: 8:14-cv-1187-EAK-JSS

ENOCH VAUGHN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Currently before the undersigned is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R")
of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. (Doc. 278). By the thorough and
well-reasoned R&R, Judge Sneed recommends that Defendants All Florida
Weatherproofing & Construction, Inc.'s ("All Florida"), Richard Fulford's, and
Robert Mendenhall's (collectively, "Defendants") motions for an award of an
appellate attorney fee, (Docs. 264, 271), be granted in part, (Doc 278). All Florida
objects in part. (Doc. 279).
After successfully defending on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit both the entry of
a declaratory judgment in their favor and a corresponding award of an attorney fee,
Defendants now request an award of an appellate attorney fee. (Docs. 264, 271).
Judge Sneed recommends the undersigned grant Defendants' motions in part, to the
extent that All Florida be awarded $128,530.00 and Fulford and Mendenhall be
awarded $20,440.00. (Doc. 278). Her recommendation doesn't include an award of

Case No.: 8:14-cv-1187-EAK-JSS
a fee multiplier for defending either appeal; and, in fact, Judge Sneed recommends the
undersigned deny any such request.

All Florida objects to Judge Sneed's

recommendation that the undersigned deny All Florida's request for a fee multiplier
for its work in defending the appeal of the declaratory judgment. Additionally, All
Florida requests the Court award prejudgment interest as a matter of law on any fee
award.

The R&R doesn't include a recommendation regarding an award of

prejudgment intertest.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), Congress vested Article III judges
with the power to "designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial
matter pending before the court," subject to various exceptions.
636(b)(l)(A).

28 U.S.C. §

The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit

proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an Article III judge.
Id. § 636(b)(l)(B).

"Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a

magistrate judge's report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written
objections to [the magistrate judge's] proposed findings and recommendations." Id.§
636(b )( 1). On review, the district judge "shall make a de nova determination of those
portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." Id. When no timely and
specific objections are filed, caselaw indicates the district judge should review the
magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations using a clearly erroneous
standard. See Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla.
1993).

2

Case No.: 8: 14-cv-1187-EAK-JSS
After careful consideration of the R&R, in conjunction with an independent
.examination of the pertinent portions of the file and a de nova review of Judge Sneed's
findings and recommendations, the undersigned will overrule All Florida's objections,
adopt the R&R, and deny All Florida's request for a fee multiplier. See Wells v. U.S.
Steel, 76 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that enhancement of a lodestar
calculation with a fee multiplier is within the sound discretion of the district court).
The Court will grant All Florida's request for an award of prejudgment interest.
See Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929, 930-31
(Fla. 1996). See also Lumpuy v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 8: 11-cv-2455-SCB-MAP,
2015 WL 1708875, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2015) (Bucklew, J.) (awarding
prejudgment interest on appellate attorney fee award at the statutory rate as of the date
the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion affirming the order of the district court).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Judge Sneed's R&R, (Doc. 278), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes,
including appellate review.
2.

Defendants' Motion for Determination of Appellate Attorney's Fees,
(Doc. 264), is GRANTED IN PART as follows:
a. All Florida is awarded $111,585.00.
b. Mendenhall and Fulford are awarded $16,000.00.

3

Case No.: 8:14-cv-1187-EAK-JSS
c. Defendants are entitled to prejudgment interest on these amounts,
with interest accruing from March 30, 2018.
3.

Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees, (Doc. 271), is GRANTED IN
PART as follows:

a. All Florida is awarded $16,945.00.
b. Mendenhall and Fulford are awarded $4,440.00.
c. Defendants are entitled to prejudgment interest on these amounts,
with interest accruing from September 11, 2018.
4.

Defendants shall submit a proposed form of final judgment awarding
appellate attorney fees not inconsistent with this Order within fourteen
(14) days.

ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, tbi~d'!i--out/L

Y.

2019.

Counsel/Partie:s~o:f~R:e:c:o:r:d---------------------~=:::

4