FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the District Court's Order of Reference, Doc. 521, the Court now considers Receiver's Final Report, Cash Based Accounting, Request for Authorization to Distribute Funds to the FTC, and Request for Other Miscellaneous Relief Incident to Closing Receivership, Doc. 516, and Receiver's Sworn Motion Requesting Authorization to Pay Fees and Expenses, Doc. 517. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the motions be GRANTED.

This is a civil action prosecuted by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") against IAB Marketing Associates L.P. ("IAB") and others in connection with a telemarketing scheme. On October 10, 2014, the Court entered its Stipulated Final Order of Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment, which required the Receiver to file a final report with the Court detailing the steps needed to wind down the IAB Defendants' affairs. Doc. 501 at 26-27. Charlene C. Koonce (the "Receiver"), appointed pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction entered on October 9, 2012, Doc. 72 at 22, filed her final report on February 6, 2015, requesting the Court to enter an order authorizing her to pay from the IAB Defendants' frozen assets the fees and expenses incurred by herself and her attorneys and accountants in effectuating the mandate of the Court's orders through January 25, 2015. Doc. 516 at 17. The Receiver also requests that the Court dissolve the receivership and that she be discharged. Doc. 516 at 17-18. The motions are effectively unopposed — the FTC has no objections to such relief, and although, as detailed below, the IAB Defendants object to the language of the report, they do not object to the relief sought. Doc. 516 at 19. The Receiver has submitted a Notice of No Objection, Doc. 520, filed on March 10, 2015, reflecting that no objections have been asserted following the date on which the Motion was filed.

A. IAB's Objection

IAB objects to the Receiver's final report on a single basis — that in recounting the factual background of this case, the Receiver should have conformed her recitation to the findings of fact agreed to by the parties and confirmed by the Court in the Stipulated Final Order [Doc. 501]. Doc. 518 at 1-2. Specifically, IAB takes issue with the Receiver's statement that "James Wood and his family members operated the IAB entities without any regard to the effect of their fraud on IAB's members and creditors, and to fund their lavish life-styles and create shady tax advantages." Doc. 518 at 3 (quoting Doc. 516 at 3).

As the Receiver correctly notes in her response to IAB's objection, no provision of the Stipulated Final Order suggests that the final report should or must be limited to the stipulations therein. Doc. 519 at 1-2. IAB has not offered any authority to support limiting the Receiver's authority to include whatever she deems appropriate in her report to the Court. Moreover, IAB has not identified, and the Court has not found, any legal basis to refuse to accept the Receiver's report due to the factual recitations contained therein. The limited issues before the Court at this stage of the case are whether to (1) grant the Receiver's fee request; (2) dissolve the receivership estate; and (3) discharge the Receiver. Since IAB does not object to the amount of fees and expenses requested, the payment of funds to the FTC, or any other substantive relief that the Receiver seeks, IAB's objection should be OVERRULED.

B. Fees and Expenses

In adjudicating an attorneys' fee award, a court first must calculate the "lodestar" fee by multiplying the reasonable number of hours expended on the case by the reasonable hourly rates for the participating lawyers. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1995). The fee applicant bears the burden of proof on this issue. Louisiana Power, 50 F.3d 324. In the second step of the lodestar method, a court must consider whether the lodestar figure should be adjusted upward or downward depending on its analysis of the 12 factors established in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 91-92 (1989).1 Id. at 331. "Many of these factors usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate and should not be double-counted." Jason D.W. ex rel. Douglas W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).

The Receiver seeks approval of a total of $61,682.08 in fees and expenses for herself, Scheef & Stone LLP, and Whitley Penn, her accounting firm, for the period ending January 25, 2015. Doc. 517-2 at 2-3; Doc. 517-3 at 7, 23, 34, 42; Doc. 517-4 at 1, 5, 9, 14. The Receiver has provided the Court with a list of services rendered to justify the claim for compensation, as well as an itemized invoice for the fees and expenses. See Doc. 517-2; Doc. 517-3; Doc. 517-4. After a review the Receiver's application, supporting materials, and applicable law, the Court finds that the requested fees and hourly rates are reasonable and customary in the community and were reached after the exercise of appropriate billing judgment.

The Receiver did not request an upward adjustment of her fee award or the fees of her attorneys and accountants. See Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19. The Court finds that no adjustment is necessary. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Receiver should recover $61,682.08 in fees and expenses for the period ending January 25, 2015, as reasonable and necessary incident to the Receiver's duties performed in these proceedings. The Receiver also requests that she be able to withhold an additional $56,500 for future fees and expenses she expects to incur in responding to creditor inquiries or objections and terminating the receivership estate. Doc. 516 at 13-15. The request is unopposed, and the Receiver should be allowed withhold $56,500 for such costs provided she hold the funds in trust and submits a supplemental report establishing the fees accrued and expenses incurred prior to expending or obligating such funds.

B. Other Relief

The Receiver also requests that, in light of her satisfaction of the terms of the Stipulated Final Order, her final report and accounting be approved and the receivership estate be terminated upon filing of a closing declaration. Doc. 516 at 16-18. Specifically, of the $186,887.33 in the receivership estate, the Receiver seeks permission to disburse to the FTC the $68,705.25 balance remaining upon payment of both current and anticipated fees and expenses.1 Doc. 516 at 17. The Receiver further requests that the Court (1) expressly approve her and her agents' conduct in performance of the Stipulated Final Order; (2) authorize distribution of any leftover funds to the FTC; (3) authorize her to file tax returns or reports as appropriate with any governmental agency; (4) authorize her to destroy all unnecessary books and records 120 after the acceptance of these findings; (5) authorize her to sell IAB's servers not earlier than 30 days after the Court rules on all creditor objections; (6) exonerate and release her bond upon filing of the closing declaration; (7) declare that the receivership estate has no liability to prepare or file any tax returns or reports for Defendants or pay any fees owed by the Defendants; (8) exonerate and release her and her agents from any and all further liability to the receivership estate upon filing of the closing declaration; (9) upon filing of the closing declaration, enjoin all persons from commencing any action, without leave of this Court, against the Receiver in connection with her service to this Court or the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; and (10) retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the injunction.

None of the parties oppose such relief, and the Court finds that the Receiver has fulfilled all court-ordered requirements and that the receivership estate should be terminated. Accordingly, the Receiver should be permitted to remit $68,705.25 to the FTC.

C. Conclusion

The Court recommends that the Receiver's Final Report, Cash Based Accounting, Request for Authorization to Distribute Funds to the FTC, and Request for Other Miscellaneous Relief Incident to Closing Receivership, Doc. 516, and Receiver's Sworn Motion Requesting Authorization to Pay Fees and Expenses, Doc. 517, be GRANTED. By its Order, the Court should approve:

The Court should further authorize the Receiver to:

It should be ordered that:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).