Castro et al v. Capital One Services, LLC et al

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2016-cv-00889

ORDER adopting {{52}} REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, adopting {{49}} REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed form of final judgment consistent with the R&Rs within 14 days. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 1/2/2018. (EJJ)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 455 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ELSA CASTRO, individuals and NICK TOSTO, individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-889-T-17TGW CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, LEGAL PREVENTION SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, WALDEN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, a foreign for-profit corporation, and EVANS LAW ASSOCIATES, P.C., a foreign professional corporation, Defendants. ORDER This cause comes before the Court pursuant to the Reports and Recommendations (Doc. Nos. 49 & 52) (the "R&Rs") entered by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on August 29, 2017 and December 15, 2017, respectively. Through the R&Rs, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiffs be awarded (1) $3,728.00 in attorney's fees and $38.78 in costs against Evans Law Associates, P.C.; (2) $3,661.75 in attorney's fees and $425.79 in costs against Walden Asset Management, LLC; and (3) $4,476.25 in attorney's fees and $228.28 in costs against Legal Prevention Services, LLC. See (Doc. Nos. 49 & 52). No party objected to the R&Rs within the time permitted and, as a result, the Court deems the R&Rs unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the R&Rs are ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. PageID 456 I. Background The Plaintiffs commenced this case by filing a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against the Defendants on April 13, 2016 for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq. (the "TCPA"), the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat.,§§ 559.55-559.785 (the "FCCPA"), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. (the "FDCPA"). The Plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims against Evans Law Associates, P.C. on October 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 33). However, Evans Law Associates, P.C. failed to comply with the terms of the settlement and, as a result, a judgment was entered against Evans Law Associates, P.C. pursuant to the settlement agreement on June 21, 2017. (Doc. No. 42). The Court then entered a final default judgment against Legal Prevention Services, LLC and Walden Asset Management, LLC, who previously failed to respond to the complaint within the time permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 46). The Plaintiffs then filed motions for attorney's fees and costs against each of the foregoing Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 45 & 50). The motions were referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, who recommended that the motions be granted as set forth above. No party objected to the R&Rs within the time permitted. II. Discussion Under the Federal Magistrate's Act (the "Act"), Congress vested Article Ill judges with the power to "designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court," subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to "submit to the judge of the court proposed findings offact and recommendations for the disposition" by an Article Ill judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a 2 PageID 457 magistrate's report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On review by the district court, "the court shall make a de nova determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made." Id. When no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates the court should review the findings using a clearly erroneous standard. Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993). Here, no party objected to the R&Rs and, as a result, the Court deems the R&Rs to be unopposed. Upon due consideration, the Court concurs with the R&Rs. Ill. Conclusion Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&Rs are ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. The Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed form of final judgment consistent with the R&Rs within 14 days. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida this 2nd day of January, 2018. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties 3