# Li v. Roger Holler Chevrolet Co.

> District Court, M.D. Florida · March 29, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10109769

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** March 29, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10109769

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

SHIH-YI LI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:19-cv-1249-GAP-EJK

ROGER HOLLER CHEVROLET CO.

Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Supplemental Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 119). On referral, Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd issued a
Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s
Motion (Doc. 121). Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report (Doc. 122) and
Defendant filed a response (Doc. 124). Upon de novo review of the above, the
Report will be confirmed and adopted.
I. Background
Plaintiff Shih-Yi Li sued his former employer, Defendant Roger Holler
Chevrolet Co., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
Florida’s constitutional minimum wage protections, the Florida Whistleblower
Act (FWA), and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). On May 5, 2021, the Court
granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and directed entry of
judgment for Defendant on all counts. Doc. 101. On December 6, 2021, the Court

granted Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees in part pursuant to the FLSA and
FWA. In compliance with the Court’s order, Defendant filed a supplemental
motion supporting the reasonableness and amount of attorneys’ fees. Judge Kidd

issued a Report and Recommendation that recommends the Court grant in part
and deny in part that motion. Li filed an objection to that Report.
II. Legal Standard
In resolving objections to the recommendation of a magistrate judge, the

district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo
review requires independent consideration of factual issues based on the record.

Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
III. Analysis
Defendant’s Motion seeks $117,136.00 in fees incurred responding to

Plaintiff’s FLSA and FWA claims. The Report notes, and the Court agrees, that the
hourly rates and the time expended by Defendant’s attorneys and legal staff are
all reasonable, aside from a minute amount of time expended on a motion to

compel arbitration that Defendant mistakenly included in its calculations. Finding
the fees requested reasonable, the Report then analyzes the wealth disparity
between the parties. Upon consideration of the disparity between Plaintiff and

Defendant, the Report recommends a 75%, across the board reduction of the fee
award.
While Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report, he fails to point out any
problem with analysis contained therein. Plaintiff does not contend that the fees

are unreasonable or point to any evidence that the Report fails to take into
account. Instead, he simply repeats his argument that he is judgment proof and
that the Court should deny all fees based on the wealth disparity between the

parties. As the Report correctly points out, however, to eliminate fees completely
in this case would not serve policy goals underlying the awarding of fees in these
types of cases. Upon de novo review, the Court finds no error with the analysis of

the Report, or the conclusion reached.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 121) is ADOPTED and

CONFIRMED as set forth above.
2. Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 122) is
OVERRULED.
3. Defendant’s Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 119) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Defendant in the amount of
$29,217.25 and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on March 29, 2022.

eae | | GREG@ORY A. PRESNELL
a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10109769. Public record. Not legal advice.