Toste v. The Beach Club at Fontainebleau Park Condominium Association, Inc. et al

Filing 358

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 345 Motion for Attorney Fees; Adopting 357 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 1/24/2025. See attached document for full details. (gbn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:20-cv-23771-KMM
SEGUNDO TOSTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BEACH CLUB AT FONTAINEBLEAU
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

/
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Segundo Toste’s (“Plaintiff”) Verified
Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (ECF No. 345). The Motion was
referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 348) who
issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 357), 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 (1) Plaintiff is
entitled to an award of attorney’s fees but solely in connection with Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, (2) the attorneys’ requested hourly rates are
reasonable, (3) Plaintiff may recover $30,825.00 for fees associated with attorney Thais Hernandez
for 82.2 hours billed at a rate of $375.00, (4) Plaintiff may recover $5,580.00 for fees associated
with attorney Rebekah Guerrero for 20.1 hours, reduced by 1.5 hours, billed at a rate of $300.00,
and (5) Plaintiff may recover $4,575.00 for fees associated with attorney Alejandro Vilarello for
12.2 hours billed at a rate of $375.00. See generally R&R. This Court agrees.
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 the R&R (ECF No. 375) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiff is awarded $40,980.00 in attorneys’ fees.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____
24th day of January, 2025.

K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

c: All counsel of record

3