Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SANTOS v. TASTE 1 GROUP, LLC, 3:14-cv-383-J-34JBT. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20151019813 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 48; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 17, 2015. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Toomey recommends that Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 44) be granted, that final judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, and that Plaintiff have 30 d
More

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 48; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 17, 2015. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Toomey recommends that Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 44) be granted, that final judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, and that Plaintiff have 30 days to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. See Report at 1, 16. Defendants have failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.

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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 48) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 44) is GRANTED.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment as to Counts I and II of the Complaint in favor of Plaintiff Kevin J. Santos, Jr., c/o Morgan & Morgan, P.A., 600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400, Plantation, Florida 33324, and against Defendants Taste 1 Group, LLC and Chris Dallo, 9726 Touchton Road, Suite 105, Jacksonville, FL 32246, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $17,499.54, representing $8,749.77 in compensatory damages and $8,749.77 in liquidated damages, plus costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

4. Plaintiff shall have up to and including November 17, 2015, to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

5. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to terminate any pending motions and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer