Ministerios el Camino v. Scottsdale Insurance Company ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1:21-cv-22502-KMM MINISTERIOS EL CAMINO, Plaintiff, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Motion for Costs Not Recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 but Recoverable Under Fla. Stat. § 768.79. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 24). Therein, Defendant requests attorney’s fees and costs under Florida’s substantive offer of judgment statute, § 768.79 Fla. Stat. See id. at 2–3. The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 25). On July 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 27), recommending Defendant’s Motion be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the R&R. 1 1 Page 7 of the R&R recommends that Defendant be awarded a total of $5,173.00 in attorney’s fees. This sum mistakenly fails to account for Magistrate Judge Louis’ analysis on Page 6, in which she determines that Defendant is not entitled to the full amount of its requested $5,173.00 for various discrepancies in billing. See R&R at 6 (“I have reviewed the time records . . . and find the time generally was reasonable . . . with two exceptions.”); id. (“With those reductions, I recommend awarding $4,649.00 in attorney’s fees.”). In light of this analysis, the Court adopts the R&R to the extent that it concludes Defendant is entitled to $4,649.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees on Page 6, and does not adopt the sum specified on Page 7. 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) because Defendant has satisfied both the elements of Florida’s offer of judgment statute (which permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees where “a plaintiff refuses to accept an offer of judgment from the defendant and the ensuing judgment is one of no liability on the part of the defendant,” see R&R at 3 (citing B & D Nutritional Ingredients, Inc. v. Unique Bio Ingredients, LLC, 855 F. App’x 503, 506 (11th Cir. 2021))), and the elements of the settlement proposal guidance set forth by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, Defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees incurred since December 23, 2021, see R&R at 4; (2) Defendant is entitled to a reduced sum of $4,649.00 in attorney’s fees, see R&R at 6; and (3) Defendant is also entitled to costs under Florida offer of judgment statute in the amount of $450.00 for mediation costs. 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 Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 27) is ADOPTED IN PART. Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant is awarded $4,649.00 in attorney’s fees and $450.00 in mediation costs. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 5th_ day of October, 2022. Upon K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record