Opinion
22-14387-CIV-CANN/McCabe
09-20-2023
PNC BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. DEMOS, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”), filed on July 28, 2023 [ECF No. 31]. Pursuant to the parties’ choice-of-law provision in the parties’ Line of Credit Agreement (the “LOC Agreement”) [ECF No. 1-2 p. 2, ¶¶ 18, 31], New York state law governs Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Because jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship, the Court must apply the choice-of-law rules of Florida, the home state. Rando v. Gov’t Employees Inc. Co., 556 F.3d 1173, 1176 (11th Cir. 2009). Under Florida’s choice of law rules, contractual choice-of-law provisions are presumptively enforceable. Interface Kanner, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704 F.3d 927, 932 (11th Cir. 2013). The Court therefore applies New York law pursuant to the parties’ agreement in the LOC Agreement [ECF No. 1-2 p. 2, ¶¶ 18, 31].
Under New York law, a prevailing party may collect attorneys’ fees and costs from the non-prevailing party if such an award if authorized by the contract. S. Coal Corp. v. Drummond Coal Sales, Inc., 28 F.4th 1334, 1344 (11th Cir. 2022). Because Plaintiff received final judgment in its favor on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the LOC Agreement [ECF Nos. 16, 17], Plaintiff is the prevailing party. New York adheres to the “lodestar” method to determine reasonable attorneys’ fee award. NRT New York, LLC v. Cepeda, No. 13-81033-CIV, 2016 WL 4081129, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2016), R&R adopted, 2016 WL 4150766 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2016). Under that method, to achieve a reasonable attorneys’ fee award, the Court multiples the number of hours reasonably expended on the case by the reasonable hourly rate. Id. The fee applicant bears the burden to prove reasonableness. Id. Additionally, the Court may use its own experience in assessing the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees. Id.
Here, Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,469.50 [ECF No. 31-1 p. 3]. On August 24, 2023, following referral [ECF No. 32], Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 33 pp. 5-6]. The Report recommends a reduction in the award of attorney’s fees based on inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s billing, duplicative billing entries, billing for administrative tasks, and excessive billing entries for a case of this size and level of complexity [ECF No. 33 pp. 4-5]. Specifically, the Report recommends an award to Plaintiff of $5,412.15 in attorney’s fees [ECF No. 33 p. 5]. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 33 p. 5].
Upon review, the Court finds the Report to be well-reasoned and correct.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 33] is ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 31] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,412.15.
DONE AND ORDERED.