Morris Edwin H & Co., Inc. et al v. Treble Makers of Wesley Chapel, Inc. et al
Filing
21
ORDER ADOPTING 20 U.S. Magistrate Judge Tuite's Report and Recommendation. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 16 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Plaintiffs are awarded attorneys' fees in the amou nt of $12,023.25. Plaintiffs are also awarded $1,240.72 in investigative fees. The total sum awarded Plaintiffs is $13,263.97.The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case and terminate any pending motions. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 1/28/2025. (AC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MORRIS EDWIN H & CO., INC.,
UNIVERSAL MUSIC
CORPORATION, AFROMAN
MUSIC, and PURPLE RABBIT
MUSIC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 8:24-cv-579-MSS-CPT
TREBLE MAKERS OF WESLEY
CHAPEL, INC. and JAMES S. HESS,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Dkt. 16) On December 27, 2024, United
States Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite issued a Report and Recommendation,
(Dkt. 20), which recommended Plaintiffs’ Motion be granted in part and denied in
part. The Parties have not objected to Judge Tuite’s Report and Recommendation, and
the deadline for doing so has passed. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case
law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES
IN PART Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.
In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete
review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). 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)). Absent 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 the Report and
Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. 1
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.
The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 20), is CONFIRMED and
The Court would, however, characterize paralegal work for which fees are recoverable as work that
is not purely secretarial and that requires the substantive knowledge of a paralegal, rather than as work
that is “‘traditionally done by an attorney.’” Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc., 203 F. Supp.
2d 1328, 1334 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (quoting Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759, 778 (11th Cir. 1988)). The
Court finds this distinction necessary to avoid confusion; a nonlawyer may not practice law. See The
Fla. Bar v. Neiman, 816 So. 2d 587, 596 (Fla. 2002) (affirming the conclusion that a paralegal’s
“conduct during settlement negotiations constituted the unlicensed practice of law”).
1
2
ADOPTED as part of this Order.
2.
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (Dkt. 16), is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as explained in the
Report and Recommendation.
3.
Plaintiffs are awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,023.25.
Plaintiffs are also awarded $1,240.72 in investigative fees. The total sum
awarded Plaintiffs is $13,263.97.
4.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case and terminate any pending
motions.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of January 2025.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Person
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?