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

Filing 342

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations 339 . Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 1/11/2022. See attached document for full details. (jb)

Download PDF
Case 0:19-cv-61306-RAR Document 342 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2022 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. 339] (“Report”), filed on January 6, 2022. The Report recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause, Entry of Final Judgment, and for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 320] be granted in part and denied in part. See Report at 1. The Report properly notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Becerra’s findings and the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 7. Both parties filed notices indicating that they did not object to the Report. [ECF Nos. 340 & 341]. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been Case 0:19-cv-61306-RAR Document 342 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2022 Page 2 of 2 properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). Because the parties do not have any objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Becerra’s findings. for clear error. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 339] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion [ECF No. 320] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. A final judgment for attorneys’ fees in Plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of $140,683.08 will follow by separate order with pre- and post-judgment interest as set forth in the Report. b. 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order to Show Cause is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ subsequent Expedited Motion for Separate Judgments for Principal and Prejudgment Interest, Inclusion of Orders Directing Completion of Fact Information Sheets, and to Strike Defendants’ Notice of Filing [ECF No. 335] is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 11th day of January, 2022. _________________________________ RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2

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?