Cauzo v. Katane LLC et al
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 1/17/2023. See attached document for full details. (lgr)
Case 0:20-cv-60396-RAR Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CV-60396-RAR
MASSIMO GUARNERA, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Jared M.
Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 127] (“Report”), on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees, [ECF No. 125].
The Report recommends awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees
against Defendants in the amount of $36,375, plus interest. See Report at 8.
filed objections to the Report, [ECF No. 128] (“Objections”).
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).
Because Plaintiff timely filed
objections to the Report, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss’s
legal and factual findings to which Plaintiff objected. Upon careful review of the record, the
Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Strauss’s recommendation.
When determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, courts begin by multiplying a
reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended.
Norman v. Housing Auth.
of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
433 (1983)). Here, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $44,160, based on
110.4 hours billed at an hourly rate of $400.
The Report recommends that this Court grant
Case 0:20-cv-60396-RAR Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 2 of 2
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, but calculate the fee based on 97 hours worked at an hourly
rate of $375, amounting to $36,375.
Despite Plaintiff’s argument that $400 is a reasonable hourly rate, our precedent indicates
that $375 is the recognized reasonable hourly rate for Plaintiff’s attorney in this case. See Walker
v. Grampa’s Real Est. Inc., No. 20-61557, 2022 WL 2789967, at *2–4 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2022),
report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 2788498 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2022); Phillips v. SC
Cap. Ventures, Inc., No. 19-62555, 2020 WL 2988381, at *2 n.2 (S.D. Fla. June 4, 2020) (“This
Court routinely refuses to award Kozolchyk more than $375/hr.”).
While Plaintiff’s counsel
points to other cases in which he has been awarded $400, Magistrate Judge Strauss carefully
distinguished those matters from the facts here and correctly found they were not dispositive.
Report at 4.
Having addressed Plaintiff’s objection to the reasonable hourly rate, the Court turns to the
number of hours billed in this case. Plaintiff does not object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s finding
that counsel reasonably billed only 97 hours—and the Court finds the Report’s reduction of hours
billed both reasonable and appropriate.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 127] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 125] is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $36,375,
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 17th day of January, 2023.
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?