Mama Jo's Inc. v. Sparta Insurance Company et al

Filing 264

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Magistrate Judge Louis's R&R DE 263 is ADOPTED. BankUnited's Verified Motion DE 257 for Award of Attorney's Fees is GRANTED, in Part, and DENIED, in Part. BankUnited is awarded $8,680.00 in attorney's fees. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/18/2023. See attached document for full details. (ebz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:17-cv-23362-KMM
MAMA JO’S INC.
d/b/a Berries,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants,
v.
BANKUNITED, N.A.,
Garnishee.

/
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Garnishee BankUnited, N.A.’s (“BankUnited”)
Verified Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees. (ECF No. 257). The matter was referred to the
Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 258). On July 17, 2023,
Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 263),
recommending that the Motion be GRANTED, in Part, and DENIED, in part. No objections to
the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As
set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).
The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific

objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781,
784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general
objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected
to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No.
14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill,
No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge
“evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review”
(citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that “BankUnited
can only recover the fees that were necessary to defend against Casa’s erroneous attack regarding
interest and the fees incurred in compelling Casa to file a satisfaction of judgment.” R&R at 16.
In addition, Judge Louis deducts time where billing record entries lack the requisite specificity,
time for tasks that are not compensable, and time incurred by multiple attorneys performing
duplicative work. See id. at 17–18. Finally, Judge Louis determines that BankUnited is not entitled
to fees incurred due to its late disbursement of the garnishment funds. See id. at 18–19. After
independent calculation, Judge Louis finds that attorney’s fees in the sum of $8,680.00 are
reasonable based on the hours worked and tasks performed. See id. at 19. This Court agrees.

2

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions
of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 263) is ADOPTED. BankUnited’s
Verified Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED, in Part, and DENIED, in Part.
BankUnited is awarded $8,680.00 in attorney’s fees.
18th day of August, 2023.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____

c: All counsel of record

K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3