The opinion
United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Naval Logistic, Inc., doing business )
as Middle Point Marina, Plaintiff )
) Civil Action No. 23-22379-Civ-Scola
v. )
)
M/V Family Time, in rem, and ) In Admiralty
Andrew Vilenchik, in personam, )
Defendant. )
Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué A.
Lett for a report and recommendations on Plaintiff Naval Logistics Inc.’s motion
for attorney’s fees and costs. (See Mot., ECF No. 129, Order of Referral, ECF
No. 131.) Judge Lett issued a report, recommending that the Court grant the
motion in part. (R&R, ECF No. 165.) Specifically, Judge Lett recommended that
the Court cut from the Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees twenty hours of
work from associate fees and ten hours from partner fees “to adequately reflect
the appropriate amount of time that should have been billed in this case.” (Id.
at 8.) Judge Lett therefore recommended awarding the Plaintiff $118,197.11 in
attorney’s fees and costs. (Id. at 9.) The Plaintiff did not file any objections.
The Defendants, Andrew Vilenchik and M/V Family Time, filed
objections. (Defs.’ Obj., ECF No. 176.) The Plaintiff filed a response to the
Defendants’ objections. (Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 209.) After reviewing the filings,
the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Lett’s report and
recommendations (ECF No. 165), overrules the Defendants’ objections (ECF
No. 176), and grants in part the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs
(ECF No. 129). Moreover, the Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 218) is
denied as moot.
1. Legal Standard
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the
magistrate judge, a party 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)) (cleaned up). Objections are “improper” if they amount to
“nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in
the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge,” as the “parties are not
to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to a [report
and recommendation].” Melillo v. United States, 2018 WL 4258355, at *1 (S.D.
Fla. Sept. 6, 2018) (Bloom, J.) (quoting Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, 2012 WL
3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (Moreno, J.)). The objections must also
present “supporting legal authority.” L. R. 4(b). Once a district court receives
“objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is
made and 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 783-
84 (quoting Heath, 863 F.2d at 822) (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to
object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions may be reviewed
for clear error. Id. at 784.
2. Analysis
The Defendants’ sole objection is to Judge Lett’s determination of the
reasonable number of hours expended by the Plaintiff’s attorneys. (See
generally Defs.’ Objs.) Therefore, the Court reviews that portion of Judge Lett’s
report de novo, and the remainder for clear error. See Macort, 208 F. App’x at
783-84.
A. Reasonable Hours Expended
The party claiming attorney’s fees, in this case the Plaintiff, bears the
burden of providing the Court with sufficient information to assess the time
claimed for each activity. See Norman v. Hous. Auth. Of Montgomery, 836 F.2d
1292, 1301 (11th Cir. 1988). If the Court finds that some hours are excessive
or redundant, they must be excluded from the final billing. Id. at 1303. In
determining the appropriate number of hours, the Court may conduct an hour-
by-hour analysis or reduce the total number of hours with an across the board
cut. See Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2008).
Courts have broad discretion in choosing either method, as there is no specific
formula to follow. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983).
Consequently, the goal for trial courts deciding on a reasonable number of
hours is not to resolve every discrepancy, but rather to arrive at a fair number
of hours worked. See Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011).
After reviewing the 80.1 hours disputed by the Defendants, the Court
does not find them all to be unduly duplicative or excessive. As noted by Judge
Lett, it is standard practice for associates to have their work reviewed by senior
attorneys, and multiple attorneys billing for the same matter is not inherently
duplicative. (See R&R, at 8.) Here, the Court finds that an across the board cut
of 20 hours from the associate fees and 10 hours from the partner fees results
in an appropriate amount of time billed and satisfies the Court’s Hensley
obligation.
In their objections, the Defendants point to two time entries in particular
that, in their view, should have been addressed directly. (Defs.’ Obj. at 4). The
Court disagrees. Judge Lett considered these entries, along with all the other
hours in dispute, when she determined the number of hours that should be cut
across the board. (See R&R, at 7-8.) Therefore, after reviewing the record and
briefing de novo, the Court adopts Judge Lett’s analysis regarding the
reasonable number of hours in full.
B. Review of Non-Objected to Portions of Judge Lett’s Report
The Defendants do not object to Judge Lett’s report and recommendation
on their noncompliance with Local Rule 7.3(b) or on the reasonableness of the
hourly rates requested by the Plaintiff. (See generally Defs.’ Objs.) Therefore,
the Court reviews these portions for clear error. The Court has considered
Judge Lett’s report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The Court
finds Judge Lett’s report and recommendation on the Defendants’
noncompliance with local rules and the reasonable hourly rate for Plaintiff’s
attorneys to be cogent and compelling. The Court therefore affirms and adopts
these portions of Judge Lett’s report and recommendation in full.
C. Defendant Andrew Vilenchik’s Supplemental Objections
On June 10, 2025, the Court granted the Defendant Andrew Vilenchik’s
counsel’s motion to withdraw. (Omnibus Order, ECF No. 185.) That same day,
Vilenchik notified the Court that he would proceed pro se. (Notice of
Appearance Pro Se, ECF No. 183.)
On June 13, 2025, Vilenchik filed his own objections to Judge Lett’s
report and recommendations. (See Def.’s Supplemental Objs., ECF No. 207.)
Vilenchik also filed a reply to the Plaintiff’s response to the Defendants’
objections. (See Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 211.) For the reasons detailed below,
these supplemental filings do not alter the Court’s analysis.
First, Vilenchik’s objections are untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) is clear:
a party must file its objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendations within fourteen days after being served a copy of the report.
Vilenchik was represented by counsel when his timely objections were filed.
Moreover, Vilenchik does not cite to any authority allowing for untimely
supplemental objections because the objecting party subsequently proceeded
pro se.
Second, the federal rules do not permit a reply to be filed in support of
objections to a report and recommendations. See Kengne v. Freeman, 1:22-CV-
2653-SEG-CMS, 2022 WL 22434271, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2022) (“The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize a reply to a response to
objections to an R&R, and plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file one.”).
Third, Vilenchik’s objections fail on the merits. The Court takes each in
turn.
Vilenchik argues that “Plaintiff’s improper arrest of the vessel . . . created
a self-inflicted dispute.” (Def.’s Supp. Objs., at 2.) However, the arrest and
subsequent sale were ordered by this Court. (Order Granting Mot. for
Interlocutory Sale, ECF No. 50.) Furthermore, that order was recently affirmed
by the Eleventh Circuit. See Naval Logistics, Inc. v. M/V Family Time, et al., No.
24-13172, ECF No. 48 (11th Cir. June 23, 2025). Just because Vilenchik
believes the arrest and sale were improper does not make them so.
Vilenchik also believes that the attorney’s fees are “disproportional[]
under Hensley,” there was “[e]xcessive and redundant billing,” and that there
was “[b]lock bulling and [v]ague [e]ntries.” (Id. at 2-3.) But the Court has
already reviewed the record and Judge Lett’s analysis under Hensley. The
Court, for the reasons already discussed above, agrees with Judge Lett’s
determination of the appropriate reduction in fees Furthermore, Vilenchik’s
objections are vague and conclusory as they fail to cite to the factual record.
Finally, Vilenchik believes that the Plaintiff’s counsel has improperly
billed for post-judgment collection and discovery abuse. (Id. at 3.) However, this
argument presupposes that the Court agrees with Vilenchik that the Plaintiff’s
counsel has engaged in abusive conduct. Vilenchik, despite multiple attempts,
has not shown that the Plaintiff’s counsel is seeking anything but proper post-
judgment information.
For these reasons, Vilenchik’s supplemental objections and reply in
support of his objections do not alter the Court’s analysis. Therefore, the
Plaintiff’s motion to strike these filings (ECF No. 218) is denied as moot.
3. Conclusion
The Court affirms and adopts Judge Lett’s report and recommendations
(ECF No. 165) and overrules the Defendants’ objections (ECF No. 176), thus
granting in part the Plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees and costs and awards
the amount $118,197.11. (ECF No. 129). Finally, the Plaintiffs motion to
strike (ECF No. 218) is denied as moot.
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on July 1, 2025.
{= N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge