Pierre-Louis et al v. SP Plus Corporation et al
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations 339 . Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 1/11/2022. See attached document for full details. (jb)
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
PIERRE-LOUIS, et al.,
BAGGAGE AIRLINE GUEST
SERVICES, INC., et al.,
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.
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
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:
The Report [ECF No. 339] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion [ECF No. 320] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART as follows:
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.
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?