Securities and Exchange Commission v. Davison et al

Filing 1254

ORDER CONFIRMING AND ADOPTING 1229 Report and Recommendations. The Receiver's Unopposed Eighteenth Quarterly Fee Application for Order Awarding Fees and Reimbursement of Costs to Receiver and His Professionals, (Dkt. 1210), is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 11/22/2024. (DEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:20-cv-00325-MSS-NHA

BRIAN DAVISON;
BARRY M. RYBICKI;
EQUIALT LLC;
EQUIALT FUND, LLC;
EQUIALT FUND II, LLC;
EQUIALT FUND III, LLC;
EA SIP, LLC;
Defendants, and
128 E. DAVIS BLVD, LLC, et al.,
Relief Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Receiver’s
Unopposed Eighteenth Quarterly Fee Application for Order Awarding Fees and
Reimbursement of Costs to Receiver and His Professionals. (Dkt. 1210) The Receiver
seeks fees and costs for his work and the work of the professionals he retained to assist
him in the resolution of this matter for the period from April 1, 2024 through June 30,
2024, as well as certain fees that were held back from the Receiver’s first three
Quarterly Fee Applications. (Id.) On September 25, 2024, United States Magistrate
Judge Natalie Hirt Adams issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that
1

the Receiver’s Motion be granted. (Dkt. 1229) No party has filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation, and the deadline to do so has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s
report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d
732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which
specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d
507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence
of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual
findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal
conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.
Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with
an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and
Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 1229), is CONFIRMED and
2

ADOPTED as part of this Order.
2.

The Receiver’s Unopposed Eighteenth Quarterly Fee Application for
Order Awarding Fees and Reimbursement of Costs to Receiver and His
Professionals, (Dkt. 1210), is GRANTED.

3.

Fees and costs shall be awarded in the following amounts:
a. The Receiver, in the amount of $75,283.94;
b. G&P, in the amount of $17,550.00;
c. JND, in the amount of $24,730.14;
d. Jared J. Perez, P.A., in the amount of $7,420.00;
e. Yip, in the amount of $833.00;
f. PDR, in the amount of $19,818.66;
g. E-Hounds, in the amount of $6,945.00;
h. Omni, in the amount of $17,394.65; and
i. RWJ, in the amount of $1,341.00.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 22nd day of November 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Person

3