Garcia v. J&J, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Paguaga v. Pinnacle One Price Dry Cleaning of Davie, LLC

    20-22694-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2023)   Cited 4 times

    Indeed, as Plaintiff points out, several of these depositions were animated in large part by the need to explore the factual and legal soundness of the several overtime exception defenses put forth by Defendants. Thus, we find that these subpoenas and depositions “were sufficiently related to the claims and issues in this case, even if many of the served individuals were not called to testify at trial,” Garcia v. J & J, Inc., No. 19-CV-60728, 2021 WL 633377, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Garcia v. J&J, Inc., No. 19-CV-60728, 2021 WL 616529 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2021), and Plaintiff is entitled to recover their cost.

  2. Maranon v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.

    1:21-cv-21785-KMM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant may properly recover the full amount of the $425.00 invoice, which details costs associated with appearance fees, and a Spanish language interpreter service, because court reporter appearance fees are recoverable and because § 1920(6) provides that the “compensation of interpreters” is a taxable cost. Joseph v. Nichell's Caribbean Cuisine, Inc., 950 F.Supp.2d 1254, 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (noting that “[t]he cases that have permitted court reporter appearance fees reason that it is necessary for the court reporter to appear and record the testimony, and then to subsequently prepare the deposition transcript” and thus permitting recovery of such fees); Garcia v. J & J, Inc., No. 19-CV-60728, 2021 WL 633377, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Garcia v. J&J, Inc., No. 19-CV-60728, 2021 WL 616529 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2021); see also Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 862 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (recommending an award for interpreter fees incurred attendant to a deposition). However, Defendant may not recover $10.00 for “Lit Support Package-Mini-PDF-PTX-XMEF” identified in the $170.20 invoice.

  3. Desantis v. Atwood

    20-CV-62004-SMITH/VALLE (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2022)   Cited 7 times

    Although there is nothing inherently unreasonable about a client relying on multiple attorneys, the fee applicant must establish that the time spent reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and is the customary practice of multiple lawyer litigation. See, e.g., Garcia v. J & J, Inc., No. 19-CV-60728, 2021 WL 633377, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Garcia v. J&J, Inc., 2021 WL 616529 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2021); Berkley Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Castle L. Grp., P.C., No. 18-CV-60309, 2019 WL 7344834, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2019) (citations omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 7344793 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2019); see also Heron Dev. Corp. v. Vacation Tours, Inc., No. 16-20683-CIV, 2019 WL 4694147, at *6-7 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2019) (finding hours excessive where multiple attorneys billed for the same tasks without clarifying the “distinct contribution [of] each lawyer”). Here, Plaintiffs failed to show the distinct contributions of the attorneys for the hours expended in this matter.

  4. Pierre-Louis v. Baggage Airline Guest Servs.

    19-cv-61306-RAR/Becerra (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Ramirez v. Supersonic of Florida, Inc., No. 20-21592-CIV, 2021 WL 2953194 (S.D. Fla. July 14, 2021) (reducing the requested hourly rate from $450.00 to $400.00 per hour based on the attorney's credentials and the nature of the case); Tissone v. Osco Food Services, LLC, No. 19-CV-61358, 2021 WL 1529915, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-61358-CIV, 2021 WL 870526 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2021) (concluding that $350.00 per hour was reasonable for an FLSA practitioner and $250.00 was reasonable for his associate “based on their experience, qualifications, and the prevailing market rates in South Florida”); Garcia v. J & J, Inc., No. 19-CV-60728, 2021 WL 633377, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Garcia v. J&J, Inc., No. 19-CV-60728, 2021 WL 616529 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2021) (awarding $350.00 per hour in an FLSA case based on counsel's “experience, qualifications, and the prevailing market rates in South Florida”); Mendez v. Integrated Tech Group, LLC, No. 18-22059-CIV, 2020 WL 6826355, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2020) (awarding $390.00 per hour to an attorney who has been “practicing law since 1994 and has appeared in thousands of FLSA cases”); see also Garcia, 2021 WL 633377, at *6 (concluding that “$100.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for the work performed by paralegals” where their qualifications were unknown to the court); Podzemelnyy v. Prolog Corp., No. 18-62395-CIV, 2020 WL 6064873, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62395-CIV, 2020 WL 6059794 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2020) (concluding that a paralegal rate of $150.00 per hour was reasonable for a paralegal specializing in FLSA). Indeed, the Court could not fi