UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-cv-62272-Dimitrouleas/Augustin-Birch

ANTHONY MORELL SANTIAGO,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

PEACOCK’S 17, LLC, and 

LEE J. GARIPOLI,

Defendants.

__________________________________/ 

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING 

OBJECTIONS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS; 

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Anthony Santiago (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion 

for Bill of Costs [DE 51]; Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees [DE 54]; the January 

29, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch, recommending that 

Plaintiff be awarded $724.90 in costs and $43,800 in attorney’s fees [DE 62]; Defendants 

Peacock’s 17, LLC and Lee J. Garipoli (collectively “Defendants”)’s Objection to Report and 

Recommendation [DE 63]; and Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 64].

The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and 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 

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 

Case 0:22-cv-62272-WPD Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2024 Page 1 of 3
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 both sides’ 

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE’s 63, 64]. Defendants do 

not object to the recommended hourly rate of $375 per hour for Plaintiff’s counsel, but they 

object to 7.5 hours of attorney work for trial preparation – drafting a joint pretrial stipulation, 

witness and exhibit lists, jury instructions and preparing trial exhibits – as they never saw these 

documents and the work was allegedly not timely performed, if it was performed at all. Plaintiff 

objects to the recommended hourly rate of $375 per hour for Plaintiff’s counsel, arguing that 

counsel is more appropriately awarded $400 per hour. Plaintiff also objects to the recommended

reduction of 13.3 hours of meetings between Plaintiff and his counsel for the purpose of 

responding to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, in light of Plaintiff’s counsel being 

adequately compensated for over 30 hours of work at the summary judgment stage. 

 Having carefully considered the Defendants’ Objections and Plaintiff’s Objections, the 

Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s analysis and conclusion 

that a reasonable hourly rate for Plaintiff’s counsel’s work in this case is $375 per hour and that 

that 116.8 hours adequately compensates Plaintiff’s counsel for the hours reasonably spent for 

attorney work in this case. See [DE 62].

Case 0:22-cv-62272-WPD Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2024 Page 2 of 3
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 62] is hereby APPROVED;

2. Defendants’ Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 63] and Plaintiff’s 

Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 64] are hereby OVERRULED; 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Bill of Costs [DE 51] is hereby GRANTED;

4. Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees [DE 54] is hereby GRANTED IN 

PART;

5. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $724.90 in costs and $43,800 in attorney’s fees.

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

this 13th day of February, 2024.

Copies to:

Counsel of Record 

Case 0:22-cv-62272-WPD Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2024 Page 3 of 3