JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14). The parties consented to the Magistrate Judge hearing all matters in this case. With respect to the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14), the undersigned issues the following Order.
On October 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, and the case was removed to this Court on November 29, 2012 (DE #1, 11/29/12). An Amended Final Judgement was entered in favor of the plaintiff against each of the defendants on September 22, 2014 (DE # 220, 9/22/14). On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff filed the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14). Rule 7.1(C), Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida provides, in pertinent part:
Having received no responses from the defendants, and responses having due, on December 9, 2014, the undersigned issued an Order (DE # 227, 12/9/14) in which he ordered that the defendants file a response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14) on or before January 6, 2015. The defendants were warned in that Order that the failure by the defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14) on or before January 6, 2015, may result in an Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14) in its entirety. As of the date of this Order, no responses have been filed with the Court by the defendants to the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14) . The plaintiff seeks attorney's fees pursuant to both Florida and federal statutes.
As noted above, a response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14) is past due and to date, the defendants have not filed a response. Also, as noted above, Rule 7.1(C), Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida provides, in pertinent part:
Having received no response from the defendants, the undersigned turns to an analysis of the plaintiff's entitlement to the fees and costs requested.
The Court entered an Amended Final Judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff prevailed in the case at bar, and is entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Florida and federal statutes.
Having determined that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees incurred in connection with the prosecution of this lawsuit, the undersigned next addresses the appropriate amount of that fee award. In calculating a reasonable attorney's fee award, the court must consider the number of hours reasonably expended on this litigation, together with the customary fee charged in this community for similar legal services.
The Court must first evaluate the plaintiff's requested fee in terms of the appropriate hourly rate. In order to determine a reasonable and proper fee award, the court must consider the number of hours expended on the case together with the customary hourly fees charged in this community for similar services.
The plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $500.00 for Adam Hall, an hourly rate of $500.00 for Andrew Hall, an hourly rate of $375.00 for Joycelyn Brown, an hourly rate of $150.00 and $225.00 for Colleen Smeryage, an hourly rate of $150.00 for Kevin Schatzman, an hourly rate of $350.00 for Samuel Cozo, an hourly rate of $225.00 for Marisol Bodero, an hourly rate of $175.00 for Scott Guarcello, an hourly rate of $150.00 for Andrew Freiheit, an hourly rate of $175.00 for Gregory Vaughn, an hourly rate of $135.00 for Richard Barone, an hourly rate of $125.00 for Jamie Geartner, an hourly rate of $75.00 for Alex Hernandez, and an hourly rate that did not exceed $45.00 per hour for contract attorneys. The plaintiff supports this fee request by submitting itemized billing records and an affidavit by attorney Adam Hall attesting to the reasonableness of the fees. The undersigned notes that the defendants, in failing to respond to the motion, have not raised an objection to the rates sought. Generally, acceptable proof of the market rate may be comprised of testimony and direct evidence from other legal practitioners in the relevant legal community who are familiar with the type of legal service provided and the prevailing market rate for such work.
The Court must next evaluate the plaintiff's requested fee for reasonableness in terms of the total hours expended by plaintiff's counsel. The plaintiff's motion requests reimbursement for 1,780.20 hours for work done by Hall, Lamb, and Hall, P.A. attorneys, and 1,086.90 hours for contract attorneys.
This Court may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent judgment when reviewing a claim for hours reasonably expended.
Upon independent review of the plaintiffs' billing records submitted to this Court, the undersigned finds that it was reasonable for plaintiffs' counsel to spend the number of hours for which reimbursement is requested to litigate this case.
In accordance with the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees (DE # 226, 10/20/14) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff is awarded
DONE AND ORDERED.