1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 0:20-cv-61113-DIMITROULEAS

CODY BARNETT, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

GREGORY TONY, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING 

OBJECTIONS; DENYING MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIFFS’ FORTHCOMING 

CLAIM FOR ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Deny Plaintiffs’ Forthcoming 

Claim for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) [DE 261], and the Report and 

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 279], dated June 10, 

2024. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 279], Defendant’s Objections 

to the Report [DE 282], Plaintiffs’ Response [DE 283], and the record herein.1 The Court is 

otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other members of the class, brought this action 

against Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony (“Defendant”), alleging that detainees imprisoned 

at the Broward County Jail were being exposed to a risk of COVID-19 infection in violation of 

their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

and the Rehabilitation Act. See [DE 1]. The parties negotiated and executed a Settlement 

1 Magistrate Judge Rule 4(b) does not provide for any reply memorandum. See S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). 

Case 0:20-cv-61113-WPD Document 284 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2024 Page 1 of 5
2

Agreement, which was approved and entered by this Court as a Consent Decree. See [DE’s 103-

1, 112]. The Consent Decree obligated Defendant to undertake certain actions to protect Class 

Members from the risk of COVID-19. See [DE 112].

On September 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Enforcement and Modification, 

arguing that Defendant failed to comply with several provisions of the Consent Decree. See [DE 

30]. After briefing and a full-day evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Judge Snow issued a Report and 

Recommendation on November 19, 2021, which this Court affirmed and adopted in part. See [DE’s 

166, 173]. In the Court’s Enforcement Order dated January 31, 2022, the Court ordered Defendant 

to: (1) test all individuals for COVID-19 at intake; (2) test for COVID-19 all detainees being 

released or otherwise leaving the Jail, including to attend court appearances; (3) ensure that all 

individuals in quarantine units are tested for COVID-19 every 3-7 days until testing identifies no 

new cases in the quarantine unit for fourteen days after the most recent positive result; (4) conduct 

temperature and COVID-19 symptom checks prior to all transfers of detainees to different 

facilities; (5) maintain a list of medically vulnerable detainees and conduct COVID-19 symptom 

screening and temperature checks of such detainees; (6) track the housing location of medically 

vulnerable detainees; and (7) ensure that detainees possess two face coverings in usable condition 

at all times. See [DE 173].

On May 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant 

Should Not Be Adjudged in Civil Contempt and Sanctioned, arguing that Defendant has failed to 

comply with provisions of the Consent Decree and the Court’s Enforcement Order. See [DE 181]. 

Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Modify the Consent Decree, seeking an extension of the Consent 

Decree until three months after a decision on the Motion for an Order to Show Cause. See [DE’s 

182, 205]. After briefing and oral argument, Magistrate Judge Hunt issued an Omnibus Order and 

Case 0:20-cv-61113-WPD Document 284 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2024 Page 2 of 5
3

Order to Show Cause, granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order to Show Cause and denying as 

moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify. See [DE 218]. Judge Hunt ordered Defendant to respond to the 

Order and scheduled an evidentiary hearing. See id.

After a full-day evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Judge Hunt issued a Report and 

Recommendation on May 18, 2023, recommending that the Court enter an Order: (i) denying 

Plaintiffs’ request to hold Defendant in contempt; and (ii) terminating the Consent Decree. See 

[DE 252]. The Court approved that Report and Recommendation and terminated the consent 

decree on August 14, 2023. See [DE 260]. 

Anticipating that Plaintiffs would file a motion for attorneys’ fees, Defendant filed a 

preemptive motion to dispute Plaintiffs’ entitlement to fees on October 13, 2023. See [DE 261]. 

Plaintiffs have since filed their motion for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs, which remains 

pending before Magistrate Judge Hunt. See [DE 265]. On June 10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Hunt 

issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court enter an Order denying 

Defendant’s Motion regarding entitlement to fees [DE 261]. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Hunt 

found that Plaintiffs were not barred from recovering attorneys’ fees and costs under Local Rule 

7.3, noting that “Plaintiffs did not disregard the requirements of Local Rule 7.3 but attempted to 

follow them[.]” [DE 279] at p. 5. Magistrate Judge Hunt also found that Plaintiffs were the 

prevailing party, noting that “when a plaintiff secures a court-ordered consent decree, the plaintiff 

is the prevailing party[.]” Id. at pp. 6-7 (citing CRST Van Expedited, inc. v. E.E.O.C., 578 U.S. 

419, 422 (2016)). As next steps, Magistrate Judge Hunt recommended that the parties be ordered 

to confer in good faith and Defendant be ordered to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ 

fees and costs within two weeks. Id. at p. 8. Defendant has now filed Objections to the Report. See

[DE 282].

Case 0:20-cv-61113-WPD Document 284 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2024 Page 3 of 5
4

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States 

Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the 

proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for 

objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 

863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and 

not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 

F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report 

and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report 

to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 

district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 

made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendant’s

Objections.2 Having carefully considered Defendant’s Objections, the Court overrules the 

Objections. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hunt’s analysis and conclusion that Plaintiffs 

are not barred from recovering attorneys’ fees and costs under Local Rule 7.3. See [DE 279] at pp. 

4-5. The Court also agrees with Magistrate Judge Hunt’s analysis and conclusion that Plaintiffs 

are the prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees. See id. at pp. 6-7. The Court does not find that 

this case presents “special circumstances” warranting a denial of attorneys’ fees. Finally, the Court 

agrees with the briefing schedule set forth by Magistrate Judge Hunt, which mirrors the default 

schedule under Local Rule 7.3(a). See id. at p. 8. If Defendant finds the briefing schedule 

2 Plaintiffs contend that the Report addresses a non-dispositive matter and is therefore subject to the deferential “clearly 

erroneous” or “contrary to law” standard of review. See [DE 283] at p. 11. The Court need not decide the appropriate 

standard of review because, even applying the less deferential de novo standard, the Court finds the Report wellreasoned and correct. 

Case 0:20-cv-61113-WPD Document 284 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2024 Page 4 of 5
5

“unworkable,” Defendant should confer with Plaintiffs and then file an appropriate motion for 

extension of time before Magistrate Judge Hunt. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 279] is hereby APPROVED; 

2. Defendant’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 282] 

are OVERRULED;

3. Defendant’s Motion to Deny Plaintiffs’ Forthcoming Claim for Entitlement to 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs [DE 261] is DENIED; and

4. Unless ordered otherwise by Magistrate Judge Hunt, Defendant shall file a response to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses [DE 265] within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs shall then have seven (7) days to 

file a reply.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 15th day of July 2024.

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Magistrate Judge Hunt

Case 0:20-cv-61113-WPD Document 284 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2024 Page 5 of 5