Opinion
1:19-cv-22540-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES
03-10-2022
INNOVA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, Defendant.
ORDER
DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes's Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 70] regarding Defendant Village of Key Biscayne's Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 60]. On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, against Defendant, bringing claims to quiet title and for filing false documents under Florida Statute § 817.535. [ECF No. 1-2]. On June 19, 2019, Defendant removed this action based on federal question jurisdiction as to Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief. [ECF No. 1].
On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint against Defendant, bringing claims for: (1) Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines in violation of § 1983 (Count I); (2) First Amendment Right to Seek Redress in violation of § 1983 (Count II); (3) Fifth Amendment Takings Clause in violation of § 1983 (Count III); and (4) Declaratory Relief (Count IV). [ECF No. 20]. On November 18, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 23]. On November 18, 2020, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing Counts I, III, and IV with prejudice and Count II without prejudice. [ECF No. 37].
On February 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Fourth Amended Complaint, bringing a single § 1983 claim pursuant to the First Amendment. [ECF No. 45]. On February 18, 2021, Defendant moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 47]. On April 30, 2021, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint with prejudice. [ECF No. 56]. On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff appealed both orders of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, [ECF No. 57], which remains pending. See Innova Inves. Grp., LLC v. Village of Key Biscayne, Case No. 21-11877 (11th Cir. June 19, 2019).
On June 29, 2021, Defendant filed the instant Motion seeking $37,713.10 in attorneys' fees and costs. [ECF No. 60]. On December 1, 2021, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a report and recommendation on the Motion. [ECF No. 67]. On January 31, 2022, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending that the Motion be granted as to Defendant's requests for costs in the amount of $400.00 and otherwise be denied. [ECF No. 70]. No. objections were timely filed.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having conducted a review of the Report for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion be granted as to Defendant's request for an award of costs in the amount of $400.00 and that the Motion otherwise be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 70], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this order by reference.
2. Defendant Village of Key Biscayne's Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, [ECF No. 60], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. Defendant Village of Key Biscayne shall be only awarded costs in the sum of $400.00, for which let execution issue.
4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to enter any further orders that may be necessary.
DONE AND ORDERED.