Marc E. Bosem MD PA Correctivision Holdings LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Company, LTD ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: 20-62205-CIV-DIMITROULEAS MARC E. BOSEM MD PA CORRECTVISION HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff, vs. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, Defendant. / ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS; GRANTING IN PART BILL OF COSTS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Court Costs [DE 151]; Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs [DE 143]; the May 25, 2022 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow, recommending that Plaintiff be awarded $100,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and $14,014.85 in costs; [DE 166]; Plaintiff’s Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 168]; and Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation on Fees [DE 169].1 The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) 1 The Court notes that no response to the Objections has been filed and the time to do so has passed. (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and both parties’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. [DE’s 168, 169]. Having carefully considered the parties’ Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. As to Plaintiff’s argument regarding Javier Lopez’s services, the Court agrees with Judge Snow’s observation that “Mr. Lopez’s affidavit deals solely with the issue of the fee amount, not the issue of entitlement to attorneys’ fees” and therefore is not recoverable under Fla. Stat. § 627.428. Further, the Court disagrees with Defendant’s argument regarding Judge Snow’s alleged refusal to weigh the results obtained in further reducing the fee awards. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, Judge Snow did consider the results obtained and reduced the fee award to $100,000.00, which the Court finds reasonable: In this case, the undersigned believes that the balance weighs in favor of the Plaintiff, who was compelled to file suit to recover its claim on the insurance policy. However, some adjustment for the results obtained is appropriate, and the undersigned finds that an appropriate award for attorneys’ fees in this case is $100,000.00. [DE 166] at 9-10. The Court also rejects Defendant’s alternative request to reduce the fee award by hours spent litigating unsuccessful motions. The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s finding that though Plaintiff did not prevail on a number of motions, Defendant failed to show that “Plaintiff's position on any of these motions lacked merit.” [DE 166] at 5. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 166] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 168] is OVERRULED; 3. Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation on Fees [DE 169] is OVERRULED; 4. Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Court Costs [DE 151] is hereby GRANTED IN PART; 5. Plaintiff is hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $100,000.00; 6. Plaintiff's Bill of Costs [DE 143] is hereby GRANTED IN PART; and 7. Plaintiff is hereby awarded costs in the amount of $14,014.85. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 22nd day of June, 2022. } f Af , i ? fname ag LLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of record