From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castro v. Capital One Servs., LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Jan 2, 2018
Case No: 8:16-cv-889-T-17TGW (M.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2018)

Opinion

Case No: 8:16-cv-889-T-17TGW

01-02-2018

ELSA CASTRO, individuals and NICK TOSTO, individuals, Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, LEGAL PREVENTION SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, WALDEN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, a foreign for-profit corporation, and EVANS LAW ASSOCIATES, P.C., a foreign professional corporation, Defendants.


ORDER

This cause comes before the Court pursuant to the Reports and Recommendations (Doc. Nos. 49 & 52) (the "R&Rs") entered by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on August 29, 2017 and December 15, 2017, respectively. Through the R&Rs, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiffs be awarded (1) $3,728.00 in attorney's fees and $38.78 in costs against Evans Law Associates, P.C.; (2) $3,661.75 in attorney's fees and $425.79 in costs against Walden Asset Management, LLC; and (3) $4,476.25 in attorney's fees and $228.28 in costs against Legal Prevention Services, LLC. See (Doc. Nos. 49 & 52). No party objected to the R&Rs within the time permitted and, as a result, the Court deems the R&Rs unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the R&Rs are ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs commenced this case by filing a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against the Defendants on April 13, 2016 for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq. (the "TCPA"), the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat., §§ 559.55 - 559.785 (the "FCCPA"), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. (the "FDCPA"). The Plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims against Evans Law Associates, P.C. on October 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 33). However, Evans Law Associates, P.C. failed to comply with the terms of the settlement and, as a result, a judgment was entered against Evans Law Associates, P.C. pursuant to the settlement agreement on June 21, 2017. (Doc. No. 42). The Court then entered a final default judgment against Legal Prevention Services, LLC and Walden Asset Management, LLC, who previously failed to respond to the complaint within the time permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 46). The Plaintiffs then filed motions for attorney's fees and costs against each of the foregoing Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 45 & 50). The motions were referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, who recommended that the motions be granted as set forth above. No party objected to the R&Rs within the time permitted.

II. Discussion

Under the Federal Magistrate's Act (the "Act"), Congress vested Article III judges with the power to "designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court," subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to "submit to the judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition" by an Article III judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a magistrate's report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On review by the district court, "the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." Id. When no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates the court should review the findings using a clearly erroneous standard. Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993). Here, no party objected to the R&Rs and, as a result, the Court deems the R&Rs to be unopposed. Upon due consideration, the Court concurs with the R&Rs.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the R&Rs are ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. The Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed form of final judgment consistent with the R&Rs within 14 days.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida this 2nd day of January, 2018.

/s/_________

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties


Summaries of

Castro v. Capital One Servs., LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Jan 2, 2018
Case No: 8:16-cv-889-T-17TGW (M.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2018)
Case details for

Castro v. Capital One Servs., LLC

Case Details

Full title:ELSA CASTRO, individuals and NICK TOSTO, individuals, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Date published: Jan 2, 2018

Citations

Case No: 8:16-cv-889-T-17TGW (M.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2018)

Citing Cases

Hous. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Vaughn

Thus, under Florida law, "time spent seeking entitlement to fees is compensable, but litigating the amount of…

Flowers v. E. Account Sys. of Conn.

Therefore, upon consideration of all relevant factors, the undersigned recommends that the application of a…