Garcia v. Nachon Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 130

ORDER denying 108 Motion for Sanctions; adopting 124 Report and Recommendations; granting 127 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 6/14/2017. (zvr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 15-cv-23416-GAYLES
ERVIN GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NACHON ENTERPRISES, INC.;
CARLOS NACHON; and
ACE HARDWARE CORP. (DELAWARE),
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on an Order by Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff
[ECF No. 124], entered on April 24, 2017 (the “Order”), and Defendant Nachon Enterprises, Inc.’s
Motion for Clarification [ECF No. 127]. The Court is fully advised in the premises.
On January 23, 2017, the Defendant filed a Verified Motion for an Award of Sanctions
against Plaintiff’s counsel and his counsel’s law firm [ECF No. 108]. The motion was fully briefed,
and on February 15th, this Court, by Endorsed Order, referred the motion (and two other motions)
to Judge Turnoff for a Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 119]. Following a hearing, Judge
Turnoff issued the Order, in which he denied the Defendant’s motion for sanctions. The Defendant
filed its motion for clarification on May 11th, seeking “clarification of the authority of the Magistrate to issue a ‘final order’ . . . .” [ECF No. 127 at 1].
While this Court agrees with Judge Turnoff that a U.S. Magistrate Judge has the authority
to enter an order denying sanctions, as opposed to a report and recommendation, e.g., Lazy Lee,
LLC v. Lazy Lee Prods. LLC, No. 15-20118, 2015 WL 3994852, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Fla. July 1, 2015),
this Court’s order referred the Defendant’s motion for sanctions for a report and recommendation,

as opposed to a full referral. Compare [ECF No. 119] (“ENDORSED ORDER REFERRING the
following Motions for a Report and Recommendation . . . .”), with Lazy Lee, LLC, No. 15-20118,
at ECF No. 23 (“ORDER REFERRING [] MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
Counsel . . . Motions referred to Judge Jonathan Goodman.”). As such, the Court will construe
Judge Turnoff’s Order as a Report and Recommendation. So construed, the Order recommends
that the Defendant’s motion be denied because the Defendant has failed to meet the high burden
required to demonstrate bad faith—a prerequisite to an award of sanctions. The Defendant timely
filed objections to the Order on May 8, 2017 [ECF No. 126], and Plaintiff’s Counsel responded
to those objections [ECF No. 128].
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 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 the required de novo review of the motion, the Order, and the
objections and ultimately finds the Defendant’s objections to be without merit. The Court agrees
with the analysis and conclusions stated in the Order and finds there is no basis to award sanctions
against Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

the Defendant’s Motion for Clarification [ECF No. 127] is GRANTED;

(2)

the Order entered April 24, 2017, construed as a Report and Recommendation [ECF
No. 124], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by
reference; and

(3)

the Defendant’s Verified Motion for Award of Sanctions [ECF No. 108] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 14th day of June, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE