Pierre-Louis et al v. SP Plus Corporation et al

Filing 311

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 306 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 2/16/2021. See attached document for full details. (co)

Case 0:19-cv-61306-RAR Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-CV-61306-RAR
JEAN EMMANUEL PIERRE-LOUIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BAGGAGE AIRLINE GUEST SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline
Becerra’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 306] (“Report”), filed on January 26, 2021. The
Report recommends that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 228] and
award Plaintiffs $24,541.90 in costs. See Report at 1. The Report properly notified the parties of
their right to object to Magistrate Judge Becerra’s findings. Id. at 12. Defendants timely filed a
Limited Objection to the Report [ECF No. 307] (“Objection”) on February 8, 2021.
This Court reviews de novo the determination of any disputed portions of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report. United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010). Any portions of
the Report to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A proper objection “identifie[s] specific
findings set forth in the [Report] and articulate[s] a legal ground for objection.” Leatherwood v.
Anna’s Linens Co., 384 F. App’x 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2010) (alterations and emphasis added;
citations omitted).
Here, Defendants object to a single sentence included in the background section of the
twelve-page Report that states as follows:

Case 0:19-cv-61306-RAR Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 2 of 2

Although the parties were ordered to participate in a settlement
conference before a Magistrate Judge and were ordered to mediate
as part of the regular administration of an FLSA case, it appears
that no settlement of the matter was entertained by Defendants
until after the Court’s decision on summary judgment.
Report at 2. (emphasis added). Specifically, Defendants object to the bolded portion of the
foregoing sentence “insofar as it can be construed as a finding of fact” because they contend that
any “finding regarding settlement efforts and positions is relevant to the pending motions for fees
and non-taxable costs and sanctions, ECF Nos. 267 & 284, and Defendants seek to preserve their
right to object to this statement.” Obj. at 1, n.1.
The statement Defendants object to has no bearing on the Motion for Costs; it is simply
provided for background purposes. Because the Court finds that the statement is not a factual
finding and therefore irrelevant to the disposition of the Motion for Costs, Defendants’ Objection
is overruled. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Objection [ECF No. 307] is OVERRULED.

2.

The Report [ECF No. 306] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 228] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall

prepare and submit to the Court a proposed Final Judgment awarding taxable costs after conferring
with Defendants.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 16th day of February, 2021.

_________________________________
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2