Arvat Corporation v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

Filing 54

ORDER adopting 52 Report and Recommendations; denying 47 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 9/30/2016. (zvr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-cv-22774-GAYLES/TURNOFF
ARVAT CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff’s Report
and Recommendation [ECF No. 52] (the “Report”), entered on September 12, 2016. By Endorsed
Order entered on January 12, 2016 [ECF No. 47], this Court referred to Judge Turnoff Plaintiff
Arvat Corporation’s Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and
Court Costs [ECF No. 44] for a Report and Recommendation. Judge Turnoff’s Report recommends
that this Court deny the motion because, inter alia, the Plaintiff has not obtained a judgment
against Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company, as this Court’s order directing the parties to
participate in appraisal does not qualify as a triggering event for the entitlement to fees and costs
under Fla. Stat. § 626.9373. Because the appraisal process has not concluded and the Court has
not yet determined whether the damages claimed by the Plaintiff are covered by the insurance
policy at issue, Judge Turnoff determined that the Plaintiff’s request for a prevailing party fee
award is premature. See Report at 7-9. Moreover, the Plaintiff conceded that its bill of costs was
untimely filed. Id. at 9. Objections to the Report were due by September 29, 2016. To date, no
objections have been filed.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommen-

dation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection
is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the
party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, the district court need only review the report and
recommendation for “clear error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. The Court has undertaken this
review and has found no clear error in the analysis and recommendations stated in the Report.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

the Report [ECF No. 52] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this
Order by reference; and

(2)

Plaintiff Arvat Corporation’s Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Reasonable
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 44] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of September, 2016.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE