Opinion
1:21-cv-21558-KMM
10-13-2022
VENUS CONCEPT USA INC., Plaintiff, v. SMITH HIGH INCORPORATED d/b/a LASERSMART SKIN AND BODY INSTITUTE INC., and DANA KOLKMAN, Defendants.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Verified and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 34). Therein, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order granting it $2,293.14 in costs and $9,860.00 in attorneys' fees, for a total of $12,153.14. See id. at 3. The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 35). On September 28, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 37), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED 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 Fed.Appx. 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) the hourly rates charged by Plaintiff's attorneys and paralegals were reasonable, see R&R at 3-5; (2) Plaintiff is entitled to a reduced sum of $8,768.00 in attorneys' fees, see R&R at 6-7; and (3) Plaintiff is entitled to reduced costs in the amount of $1,474.30, see R&R at 7-9. 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. 37) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is awarded $8,768.00 in attorney's fees and $1,474.30 in costs.
DONE AND ORDERED.