UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81360-RAR

COMERICA BANK,

Plaintiff,

v.

EVERGLADES DRESSAGE, LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard’s 

Report and Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 167], filed on March 6, 2023. The Report 

recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

(“Motion”), [ECF No. 166]. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report (“Objections”), [ECF 

No. 170]. Having reviewed the Report, the Motion, the Objections, as well as conducted a de novo 

review of the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report, [ECF No. 167], is hereby AFFIRMED 

AND ADOPTED, and the Motion, [ECF No. 166], is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

The Report recites a thorough and accurate recitation of the relevant facts of this case and 

the Court adopts the recitation as if fully set forth herein. See Report at 1–3. Local Rule 7.3(a)(1) 

requires parties to file motions for attorneys’ fees and costs “within sixty (60) days of the entry of 

the final judgment or order giving rise to the claim.” As Magistrate Judge Maynard correctly 

stated in the Report, Plaintiff did not file the Motion until January 18, 2023, which was 316 days 

after the Court entered the Deficiency Judgment giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim for fees and costs. 

Case 9:20-cv-81360-RAR Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2023 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Report at 5. While Plaintiff argues “unusual circumstances” surrounding Plaintiff’s attempt to 

recover its fees and costs without court intervention justify Plaintiff’s untimeliness, see generally 

Objs., these “circumstances” do not excuse Plaintiff from Local Rule 7.3’s requirements. See 

Sriskada v. Harbor Pita, Inc., No. 14-20526, 2014 WL 3908206, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2014) 

(“Local Rule 7.3’s requirements are not optional, but mandatory. . . . A party’s failure to comply 

with Local Rule 7.3 is a sufficient basis to deny its fees and costs motion.”). Therefore, the Motion 

must be denied.1

 See also Lira v. Essentia Ins., 861 F. App’x 374, 378 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming 

denial of motion for attorneys’ fees and costs due to a failure to comply with Local Rule 7.3(a)(1)).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Maynard’s Report, [ECF No. 167], is hereby AFFIRMED AND 

ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion, [ECF No. 166], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2023.

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 The Report also recommends the Motion should be denied due to deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Motion and 

supporting evidence, including potential duplication and redundancy of attorney work and insufficient 

support for the requested costs. See Report at 6–8. The Objections largely fail to address these deficiencies, 

arguing Plaintiff “laid out the extensive effort required on behalf of” Plaintiff and stating Plaintiff will 

provide “additional detail” or retain “an expert” to support its request for fees and costs if needed. Objs. at 

3–4. While the failure to comply with Local Rule 7.3(a)(1) requires the Motion be denied, after de novo 

review the Court agrees with the Report as to this ground for denial as well. See Report at 6–8.

Case 9:20-cv-81360-RAR Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2023 Page 2 of 2