Varlesi v. Wayne State University et al
ORDER Accepting in Part 163 Report and Recommendation and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff 145 Motion for Attorney Fees, :Terminated Plaintiff's 212 Motion to Expedite is MOOT, and Plaintiff's 198 Motion for Entry of an Order Accepting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Interest is MOOT. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (TMcg) Modified on 7/21/2017 (TMcg).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
TINA M. VARLESI,
Case No. 10-14793
Honorable Denise Page Hood
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY,
THE SALVATION ARMY, CAROL
PREMO, ANWAR NAJOR-DURACK,
PHYLLIS I. VROOM, SHAWN J. LEE,
MARGARET BRUNHOFER and
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND INTEREST
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk’s
Report and Recommendation filed August 14, 2013 (Doc. No. 163) on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Interest. (Doc. No. 145) Defendants timely
filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation raising five specific objections.
(Doc. No. 164) Plaintiff filed a response to the Objections. (Doc. No. 167)
The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and
Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C.§ 636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c). The
Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate.” Id. In order to preserve the right to appeal
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, a party must file Objections to the Report
and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the
Objections filed to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Magistrate
Judge’s findings and conclusions are correct, except for the following issues
addressing the specific objections.
Objection No. 1 that the Court should stay a ruling on the motion pending the
ruling on Defendants’ post-trial motions and appeals is sustained as to the post-trial
motion, but overruled as to the appeal period for the reasons set forth by the
Magistrate Judge. Objection No. 2 regarding Plaintiff’s counsels’ hourly rates is
overruled, the Court adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Objection No.
3 as to the details of the billing records is overruled, the Court finding that the
Magistrate Judge’s reduction of 10% is sufficient. Objection No. 4 regarding the
attorney fees for claims that were lost is overruled, the Court accepting the Magistrate
Judge’s findings on this issue that the lost claims arose from a common core of facts
and related legal theories. As to Objection No. 5, the Court sustains the objections as
to the amount of costs to be set at $5,898.22 (not $6,483.64), deducting the $757.50
for computerized legal research and deducting $750 for attempts to recover emails on
Plaintiff’s computer since Plaintiff has not shown the forensic requirement, for
additional costs beyond the costs taxed by the Clerk at $4,390.72. The objection
relating to reduction of copying costs is overruled and the Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s 10% reduction.
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Defendants have not objected to the request
for pre-judgment interest under state law and post-judgment interest under state and
federal law. The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 163) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED IN PART as this Court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law, except for the findings noted above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs
and Interest (Doc. No. 145) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as more
fully set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of an Order
Accepting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiff’s
Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Interest (Doc. No. 198) is now rendered MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are entitled to the following fees
and costs through the date of the filing of the instant Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs and Interest:
(in addition to the clerk’s taxation)
s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
Chief U.S. District Judge
DATED: July 21, 2017
Certificate of Service
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective
emails or First Class U.S. Mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing
on July 21, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?