Garcia et al v. J & J, INC. et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 152 Motion for Bill of Costs; granting in part and denying in part 155 Motion for Attorney Fees; Adopting 181 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 2/17/2021. See attached document for full details. (pcs)
Case 0:19-cv-60728-BB Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2021 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 19-cv-60728-BLOOM/Valle
JOSE GARCIA, LEDVIN ALARCON,
and all others similarly situated under
219 U.S.C. § 216(b),
J&J, INC., d/b/a EAGLE PAINTING,
JANET S. FIELD and JOHN H. FIELD,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion in Support of Bill of Costs, ECF
No.  (“Motion for Costs”), and Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, ECF No.
 (“Motion for Fees”) (together, the “Motions”). The Court previously referred the Motions to
Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle. ECF No. . On February 1, 2021, Judge Valle issued a
Report and Recommendations recommending that the Motion for Costs be granted and that the
Motion for Fees be granted in part and denied in part. ECF No.  (the “R&R”). The
recommendation reflects reductions in certain of the hourly rates requested and the number of
hours expended, which Judge Valle concluded are warranted in this case. Ultimately, Judge Valle
recommends that Plaintiff be awarded $159,273.00 in attorneys’ fees and $10,240.00 in costs, for
a total award of $169,513.00.
The R&R advised that “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report
and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings
and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district.” ECF No.  at 22. To
Case 0:19-cv-60728-BB Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2021 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 19-cv-60728-BLOOM/Valle
date, neither party has filed objections, nor have they sought additional time in which to do so.
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Motion and the record, has conducted a de novo review
of Judge Valle’s R&R, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Williams v. McNeil, 557
F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Upon review, the Court finds Judge Valle’s R&R to be well-reasoned and correct. The
Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs should
be granted and that the Motion for Fees should be granted in part for the reasons set forth therein.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Judge Valle’s R&R, ECF No. , is ADOPTED.
2. The Motion for Costs, ECF No. , is GRANTED.
3. The Motion for Fees, ECF No. , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
4. Plaintiff is awarded a total of $169,513.00, comprised of $159,273.00 in attorneys’
fees, and $10,240.00 in costs.
5. This case shall remain CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 17, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Counsel of record
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?