UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-62250-CIV-SINGHAL

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATCHBOX SAWGRASS LLC 

d/b/a Matchbox Sawgrass Mills,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

(DE [12]). Included in this Motion is Plaintiff’s demand for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Defendant Matchbox Sawgrass LLC d/b/a Matchbox Sawgrass Mills (“Matchbox”) was 

served with the Summons and Complaint on December 8, 2022. Matchbox failed to timely 

respond or answer to the Complaint and the Clerk entered a Default on January 17, 2023. 

(DE [10]). Plaintiff now moves for entry of a default final judgment against Matchbox.

“A court must review the sufficiency of the complaint before determining whether 

a moving party is entitled to default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b).” Tan v. Sushi Yama 

Japanese Rest., Inc., 2020 WL 6293216, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2020), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 6290345 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2020) (citing United 

States v. Kahn, 164 Fed. Appx. 855, 858 (11th Cir. 2006)). “The effect of a default 

judgment is that the defendant admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, is 

concluded on those facts by entry by the judgment, and is barred from contesting on 

appeal the facts thus established.” Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 

1987) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “If the admitted facts are sufficient to 

establish liability, the Court must then ascertain the appropriate amount of damages and 

Case 0:22-cv-62250-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 1 of 5
2

enter final judgment in that amount.” Tan, 2020 WL 6293216, at * 1 (internal citations 

omitted).

To state a claim under the ADA a plaintiff must allege (1) he is an individual with a 

disability; (2) the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; 

and (3) the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff within the meaning of the ADA.

Norkunas v. Seahorse NB, LLC, 444 Fed. Appx. 412, 416 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing 42 

U.S.C. 12182(a)). Here, Plaintiff has alleged that he suffers from a qualified disability 

under the ADA. (DE [1] ¶ 6). Further, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant 

owns, leases or operates a place of public accommodation. (DE [1] ¶ 4). Because 

Defendant operates a place of public accommodation, as the premises are used as a

restaurant, Defendant must rectify the violations and maintain the premises in compliance 

with the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. §1281(7)(A). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

discriminated against him within the meaning of the ADA and provides the exact 

provisions of the ADA that Defendant has violated.

Additionally, where a plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, as plead in this matter, 

said plaintiff must also show that there is a real and immediate threat of future injury.

Stringham 6 v. 2921 Orlando Drive, LLC, 2014 WL 2215769 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (citing Shotz 

v. Cates, 256 F. 3d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff alleges that if Defendant 

modifies the premises to comply with the ADA, then Plaintiff will be given equal access to 

and equal enjoyment of the facilities at the Premises and his injury-in-fact will be 

redressed. (DE [1] ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12). Additionally, Plaintiff, a bona fide patron of 

the premises, alleges that he will avail himself of the services offered at the premises in 

the future, provided that Defendant modifies the premises or modifies the policies and 

practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities. (DE [1] ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 

Case 0:22-cv-62250-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 2 of 5
3 

10, 11, 12 and 13). Thus, Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered an injury-in-fact as a result 

of Defendant’s failure to comply with the ADA and that the injury-in-fact can be rectified 

through court intervention, which will alleviate the real and immediate threat of Plaintiff 

being subjected to future injury in the form of Plaintiff being denied equal access and 

equal enjoyment of the public accommodations at the premises. Plaintiff is entitled to the 

relief sought.

Next, the ADA provides for an award of attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing 

plaintiff. 42 U.S.C. § 12205. The reasonableness of attorney’s fees in this circuit is 

determined by the lodestar method, whereby the number of hours reasonably expended 

on the litigation is multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 

424 (1983); Norman v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988).1 

After determining the reasonable hourly rates, the Court must assess the reasonable 

number of hours expended in the litigation. Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301. The party seeking 

an award of fees must document the hours worked and claimed. Sierra v. JRF, Inc., 2017 

WL 1929961, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2017). The court may only award fees for hours that 

were “reasonably expended” and should exclude from the initial fee calculation any hours 

that were not reasonably expended. Id. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34). The 

reasonableness of the hours expended depends on counsel’s “billing judgment,” that is, 

1 In Norman, the court stated that the following twelve factors set forth by the former Fifth Circuit in Johnson 

v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714, 719 (5th Cir. 1974), are still relevant in establishing a 

reasonable hourly rate: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions 

involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment 

by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or 

contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the 

results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the 

case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar 

cases. See 836 F.2d at 1299. In determining counsel=s reasonable hourly rates, the Court has considered 

the applicable Johnson factors.

Case 0:22-cv-62250-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 3 of 5
4 

the exclusion of hours “that would be unreasonable to bill a client, and therefore to one’s 

adversary irrespective of the skill, reputation, or experience of counsel.” Am. Civil 

Liberties Union of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Norman, 

836 F.2d at 1301). The court “is itself an expert on the question and may consider its 

own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an 

independent judgment either with or without the aid of witnesses as to value.” Norman, 

836 F.2d at 1299.

Plaintiff has submitted an Affidavit of Time and Costs (DE [12-2]) and seeks a total 

of $6,204.00 in fees and costs. The Court has reviewed the affidavit and concludes that 

the $350 per hour fee for attorney Gregory S. Sconzo is reasonable. The Court finds, 

however, that the hours expended are not reasonable. In particular, the Complaint, 

Motion for Clerk’s Default, and Motion for Default Judgment are based upon cookie-cutter 

routine forms used in multiple cases.2 The Court finds the 7.4 hours billed for those 

pleadings and motions to be excessive and will reduce the hours to 3.7 for preparation of 

the Complaint, Motion for Clerk’s Default and Motion for Default Judgment. See Brother 

v. Miami Hotel Investments, Ltd., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (reducing 

attorney’s fees where pleadings consisted of cookie-cutter complaint similar to complaints 

filed in other cases). In addition, the Court will not award legal assistant charges of $45 

for preparation of a package of the Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, and Summons for the 

process server. This is a clerical task that is not recoverable. Finally, the Court will deny 

recovery of $105 for a communication between attorney Sconzo and the expert regarding 

affidavit and final judgment because the Court cannot accept the expert services as 

2 The Court notes that attorney Sconzo has appeared in the Southern District of Florida in 1,089 ADArelated matters and less than 50 of those matters involve clients other than the Plaintiff Cohan. The 

complaints and pleadings are similar and usually based upon the same form pleadings.

Case 0:22-cv-62250-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 4 of 5
5

reasonable in this case.

Plaintiff seeks to recover $1,900 for the services of Giovannia Paloni as an expert

who assisted in evaluating Defendant’s premises. Ms. Paloni’s affidavit (DE [12-3])

attests that her services involved reviewing pictures submitted to her by Plaintiff, talking 

to Plaintiff about the barriers he encountered, and creating a Violation Breakdown. The 

invoice submitted does not state the hourly rate or the number of hours expended.

Plaintiff has also attributed $1,900 – the exact same amount – in costs to Ms. Paloni’s 

services in prior cases. See Cohan v. Tabac West Palm Beach, Inc., No. 21080642-CIVSINGHAL (S.D. Fla. June 23, 2021). Plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of 

establishing that Ms. Paloni’s services were reasonably necessary or reasonably 

charged. See Caplan v. Rehabclinics (PTA) Inc., 2020 WL 3977140, at *8 (Jul. 13, 2020) 

(expert fee petition failed to establish reasonableness of fee). The Court cannot accept 

a fee of $1,900 for the work that was performed and will disallow the $1,900 expert fee 

sought by Plaintiff. The remaining costs, $402 filing fee and $52.40 for service of process,

are reasonable and will be awarded. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Final Judgment

(DE [12]) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court will enter a Final

Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$2,415.00 ($350 per hour for 6.9 hours) and costs in the amount of $454.40. The Clerk 

of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. A 

separate Final Default Judgment will be entered.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 13th day of 

February 2023.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-62250-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 5 of 5