UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 0:20-cv-61557-WPD

ANTHONY JEROME WALKER, MERISIER MODELET,

TERRY BROWN-MONDESIR,

JOHN MICHAEL MUNRO, JENNIE 

TOMASELLO SKULA, MARIE DEPAROLESA

DAWN CHARLTON, MARJORIE CONNOR,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

GRAMPA’S REAL ESTATE INC. d/b/a GRAMPA’S

BAKERY & RESTAURANT, CAROL GRAMPA,

Defendants.

 / 

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING 

OBJECTIONS; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), REQUEST FOR FEE 

MULTIPLIER, AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees 

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Request for Fee Multiplier, and Non-Taxable Costs [DE 142] 

and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 

160], dated June 29, 2022. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 160], 

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 167], and the record herein. The 

Court is otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

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 

Case 0:20-cv-61557-WPD Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2022 Page 1 of 3
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 Plaintiffs’

Objections to Report and Recommendation. [DE 167]. Having carefully considered Plaintiffs’

Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with Judge Strauss that $375 

per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for Plaintiffs’ counsel in this matter. As Judge Strauss

pointed out in the Report, “other judges in this district who have considered Mr. Kozolchyk’s

reasonable hourly rate over the last few years have overwhelmingly found $350 or $375 (and no 

more) to be reasonable.” Id. at 6. Furthermore, the Court agrees with Judge Strauss that 

Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to show that this case is more complex than a run-of-the-mill FLSA 

case. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s objections do not otherwise address how his work in this case 

entitles him to him to more than the reasonable rate of $375 per hour, which the Court agrees is 

“‘at the high end of the range of rates charged in’ this district for FLSA attorneys.” Id. (citing 

Echavarria v. Am. Valet Parking, No. 14-80770-CIV, 2015 WL 12746113, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 

1, 2015)). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Case 0:20-cv-61557-WPD Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2022 Page 2 of 3
1. The Report [DE 160] is hereby APPROVED; 

2. Plaintiffs’ Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 167] are 

OVERRULED;

3. Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 

Request for Fee Multiplier, and Non-Taxable Costs [DE 142] is hereby 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;

4. Plaintiffs’ are hereby awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $127,265.62 and 

non-taxable costs in the amount of $600, for a total award of $127,865.62 plus 

interest.

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

this 14th day of July, 2022.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61557-WPD Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2022 Page 3 of 3