The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-23230-CIV-CANNON/OTAZO-REYES
ANGELA MILNER,
SHAKIR WILLIAMS,
RASHEEDAH MAYS,
AMEERA BREWER,
EBONY MAYFIELD,
JOCELYN JOHNSON,
JAMMIE PARKER,
MARLEKA WILLIAMS, and
TIFFANY THOMPSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TERI GALARDI,
Defendant.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Teri Galardi’s (“Defendant”)
Statement of Reasonable Costs and Fees (hereafter, “Statement”) [D.E. 117], filed on September
15, 2021, pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Second Motion for Sanctions
and Dismissing Certain Plaintiffs (hereafter, “Order”) [D.E. 113]. This matter was referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 by the Honorable Aileen M. Cannon, United States
District Judge [D.E. 38].
In her Statement, Defendant requests an award based on 4.10 hours expended by Attorneys
Gerald Tobin and Howard Brodsky at a discounted hourly rate of $350.00. See Statement [D.E.
117 at 2]. This yields a total fee award of $1,435.00. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an objection
to Defendant’s Statement.
“A reasonable award of attorney’s fees is calculated using the lodestar method, which
requires the court to multiply the reasonable hours expended by a reasonable hourly rate.” Gary
Brown & Assocs., Inc. v. Ashdon, Inc., No. 05-CV-8039, 2006 WL 8435138, at *1 (S.D. Fla.
2006) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). “[T]he Court is an expert on the
issues of the prevailing market’s reasonable hourly rates for similar work and hours expended.”
Learning Connections, Inc. v. Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC, No. 11-CV-368, 2012 WL
13102412, at *4 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (citing Norman v. Housing Auth. of the City of Montgomery,
836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988)).
Having reviewed Defendant’s Statement, the Declaration of Gerald Tobin Esq. and
Howard Brodsky Esq. in support thereof [D.E. 117-1], the scope of the Order on discovery
sanctions, and applying her own knowledge and expertise and noting Plaintiffs’ non-objection, the
undersigned finds the total requested amount of $1,435.00 to be reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS that the
Court GRANT Defendant’s total requested amount of $1,435.00 incurred in filing its Second
Motion for Sanctions.
Pursuant to Local Magistrate Judge Rule 4(b), the parties have fourteen days from the date
of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Aileen
M. Cannon, United States District Judge. Failure to file timely objections may bar the parties from
attacking the factual findings contained herein on appeal. See Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark
Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Further, “failure to object in accordance
with the provisions of [28 U.S.C.] § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district
court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” See 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (1.0.P.
- 3).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 19th day of October,
2021.
ALICIA M. A
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ce: United States District Judge Aileen M. Cannon
Counsel of Record