UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

VILMA MARQUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONAL FIRE AND MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Vilma Marquez’s Motion for Entitlement 

to Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Motion”), ECF No. [196]. Defendant National Fire & Marine 

Insurance Company (“Defendant”) filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [197], to which 

Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [200]. The Motion was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, 

ECF No. [201]. On October 2, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”), ECF No. [202], recommending that the Motion be denied as untimely.

Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R, ECF No. [203], and Defendant filed a Response, 

ECF No. [204]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the Objection in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th 

Cir. 2009). The Court has considered the Motion, the R&R, the Objection, the Response, the record 

in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection and adopts the R&R. 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2023 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

2

I. BACKGROUND

The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case and adopts the 

procedural history described in the R&R.

Plaintiff objects to the reasoning in the R&R and contends that: (a) Plaintiff is entitled to 

attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party; (b) Plaintiff’s Motion was timely based upon the 

purported agreement between the parties; (c) good cause exists under the Pioneer factors to allow 

Plaintiff to file her late Motion based upon excusable neglect; (d) expert witness costs should be 

taxed as costs not otherwise taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. ECF No. [203] at 6-19. Defendant 

responds that the R&R is correctly reasoned and that each of Plaintiff’s points is without merit.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party 

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)) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting legal 

authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). The portions of the report and recommendation to which 

an objection is made are reviewed de novo only 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). If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge’s 

report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (quoting Johnson 

v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)); see also Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. 

WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001). “It is improper for 

an objecting party to ... submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2023 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

3

of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. 

Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to an 

R & R.” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 

21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 

382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court addresses each Objection in turn.

a. Entitlement to fees as the prevailing party

Plaintiff’s first objection is that she is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing 

party. However, Defendant does not challenge Plaintiff’s entitlement to fees as the prevailing 

party. Rather, asJudge Louis correctly points out, the issue before the Court is not whether Plaintiff 

is entitled to the fees, but “entitlement hinges on a finding of excusable neglect.” ECF No. [202] 

at 4. The Court does not need to address the issue of entitlement unless and until it finds that the 

untimeliness of Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is excused. As found by Judge 

Louis and separately determined by this Court, Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of 

establishing excusable neglect and adopts the R & R’s reasoning.

b. The purported agreement between parties

Plaintiff next asserts that there was an enforceable agreement between the parties, 

rendering her Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs timely. ECF No. [203] at 7. Plaintiff concedes

that she is “mindful of district court opinions discussing the bright-line nature of the deadlines 

imposed by Local Rule 7.3.” Id. However, Plaintiff argues that there are no express restrictions 

“precluding or limiting counsel’s ability to extend deadline[s] to resolve attorney’s fees and costs 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2023 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

4

pending the resolution of post-trial matters” in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the 

Local Rules. ECF No. [203] at 7-8. 

Defendant responds that it merely agreed to not oppose a potential motion to stay the time 

for filing a fee motion until after resolution of its Motion for a New Trial, included within its 

Omnibus Post-Trial Motions. ECF No. [204] at 7. Defendant argues that Plaintiff never filed a 

motion to stay or extend with the Court. Id. at 7. Accordingly, the deadline to file the Motion 

remained as April 15, 2022, and Plaintiff’s counsel did not file the Motion until June 30, 2023. Id. 

As Judge Louis correctly pointed out, Plaintiff’s Motion was untimely, noting that “Local 

Rule 7.3(a)(1) is clear in its requirements: a motion for award of attorney’s fees and/or non-taxable 

expenses and costs arising from the entry of a final judgment or order ‘shall . . . . be filed and 

served within sixty (60) days of the entry of the final judgment or order giving rise to the claim.’” 

ECF No. [202] at 12; S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(a)(1). “‘Local Rule 7.3’s requirements are not optional, 

but mandatory.’” Id. at 7; Comerica Bank v. Everglades Dressage, LLC, No. 20-81360, 2023 WL 

2715824, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar 7, 2023) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s assertion that she had an

“enforceable agreement” to stay resolution of the issue of attorney’s fees and costs was “neither 

self-executing nor binding on the District court.” ECF No. [202] at 7. Therefore, as the Final 

Judgment in favor of Plaintiff was entered on February 14, 2022, the deadline to file a motion for 

attorney’s fees and/or non-taxable costs was April 15, 2022. ECF No. [202] at 5. Plaintiff’s Motion 

was not filed until June 30, 2023. Id. at 7.

c. No good cause exists based on excusable neglect and the Pioneer factors

Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s findings that Plaintiff’s error was a mistake of law,

precluding a determination of excusable neglect. ECF No. [201] at 11. Plaintiff argues that there 

was no mistake of law, citing to Mendez v. Integrated Tech Grp., LLC, No. 18-22059-CIV, 2020 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2023 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

5

WL 6826355, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2020) where a party was allowed to file a motion for 

attorney’s fees past the 60-day deadline. ECF No. [203] at 11 n.9. Plaintiff failed to address the 

finding that “the movant in Mendez had reasonably relied on Eleventh Circuit caselaw pre-dating 

the amendment to that Local Rule.” ECF No. [202] at 6. “There has been no showing of reasonable 

reliance in that respect here.” Id.

As Judge Louis correctly points out, the neglect alleged was the mistaken belief that 

Plaintiff could “supplant the deadline set forth in Local Rule 7.3(a)(1) absent approval by the 

Court.” ECF No. [202] at 12. “Because Plaintiff’s attorneys made a mistake of law and, under the 

law in this circuit, mistakes or ignorance as to the law cannot constitute ‘excusable neglect,’ the 

Court need not consider the factors set forth in Pioneer.” Hurley v. Anderson, No. 16-80102, 2017 

WL 4304894, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2017).

e. Expert witness costs not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Plaintiff objects to the R&R and argues that while costs for the services of an expert witness 

“are generally not taxable as costs in federal court” here, an expert was necessary to answer a 

critical question on causation. ECF No. [203] at 19. Plaintiff cites to Fla. Stat. § 626.9373 for 

support. Defendant argues that those costs are not recoverable under Fla. Stat. § 626.9373. 

Furthermore, if those costs were taxable, the prevailing party must comply with the deadlines as 

per S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(a). ECF No. [204] at 18.

As Judge Louis correctly points out, a motion for costs not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920

is subject to the same 60-day deadline as a motion for attorney’s fees. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(a)(1);

ECF No. [202] at 13. Accordingly, the Court finds the request untimely based on the record.

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2023 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

6

IV. CONCLUSION

Upon a de novo review, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Louis’ R&R to be well reasoned 

and correct on all matters.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The R&R, ECF No. [202], is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF No. [203], are OVERRULED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, ECF No. [196], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 12, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2023 Page 6 of 6