Prieto v. Total Renal Care, Inc.

Filing 170

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S OMNIBUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, denying as moot 159 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting in part and denying in part 160 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting in part and denying in part 164 Motion for Attorney Fees; Adopting 169 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 2/14/2022. See attached document for full details. (pcs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 18-21085-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN
BLANCA PRIETO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC.
d/b/a DAVITA d/b/a
FLORIDA RENAL CARE,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
OMNIBUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER is before me upon the Omnibus Report and Recommendation on
Defendant’s Motions for Entitlement of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and
Otherwise Non-Taxable Costs (the “R&R”) of the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, U.S.
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 169), regarding Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Entitlement of
Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Otherwise Non-Taxable Costs [ECF No. 159],
Defendant’s Modified Motion for Entitlement to Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and
Otherwise Non-Taxable Costs [ECF No. 160], and Motion for Appellate Attorneys’ Fees
[ECF No. 164]. See Referral Orders [ECF Nos. 165-67].. The Undersigned referred this case
to Judge Hunt for all non-dispositive pretrial motions, fees, and costs, as well as the specific
motions at issue herein. ECF Nos. 10 and 165-167; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636; S.D. Fla. L.R.,
Mag. R. 1.
In his R&R, Judge Goodman recommends that: 1) Defendant’s renewed fees motion
[ECF No. 159] be denied as moot because it was superseded by the modified fees motion
[ECF No. 160]; 2) Defendant’s modified fees motion [ECF No. 160] be granted in part and
denied in part. The motion should be granted with respect to Defendant’s entitlement to
attorneys’ fees at the trial level and denied as to Defendant’s request for non-taxable costs.
Defendant should be permitted to file a renewed motion addressing the amount of costs to be
awarded for work performed at the trial level; however, any renewed fees motion should be
1

supported by the appropriate documentation (including revised timesheets and a declaration),
should not include time entries already submitted as part of the appellate fees request, and be
in compliance with Local Rule 7.3; and 3) Defendant’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees
[ECF No. 164] be granted in part and denied in part. The Court should, therefore, award
Defendant $20,239.60 ($5,059.90 less than the amount requested) in reasonable appellate
attorneys’ fees.
It should be noted that no objections were filed as to the R&R. Nonetheless, I have
reviewed the Motions, the briefing related thereto, Judge Goodman’s R&R, the record, and
the relevant legal authorities. Having done so, I find Judge Goodman’s R&R to be clear,
cogent, and compelling.
Accordingly, Judge Goodman’s R&R (ECF No. 136) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED
as the Order of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s renewed fees motion [ECF No. 159] is DENIED AS MOOT because
it was superseded by the modified fees motion [ECF No. 160];
2. Defendant’s modified fees motion [ECF No. 160] is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted with respect to Defendant’s
entitlement to attorneys’ fees at the trial level and denied as to Defendant’s request
for non-taxable costs. Defendant is permitted to file a renewed motion addressing
the amount of costs to be awarded for work performed at the trial level; however,
any renewed fees motion must be supported by the appropriate documentation
(including revised timesheets and a declaration), should not include time entries
already submitted as part of the appellate fees request, and must be in compliance
with Local Rule 7.3; and
3. Defendant’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees [ECF No. 164] is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court, therefore, awards Defendant
$20,239.60 in reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees.

2

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 14th day of February
2022.

Copies furnished to:
Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of record

3