FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB v. Lawrence et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM L. LAWRENCE, JR., EUTHAINE P.J. LAWRENCE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2016-105 ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEARANCES: A.J. Stone, III Adam Nicholas Marinelli Bolt Nagi PC St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Flagstar Bank, FSB. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court is the motion of Flagstar Bank, FSB, (“Flagstar”) that seeks attorney’s fees (the “fee petition”) from William L. Lawrence, Jr., and Euthaine P.J. Lawrence (collectively the “Lawrences”). Flagstar’s fee petition seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,750. The Court referred Flagstar’s fee petition to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. On September 5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Case: 3:16-cv-00105-CVG-RM Document #: 40 Filed: 09/20/18 Page 1 of 3 Flagstar Bank, PSC v. William L. Lawrence, Jr., et al. Civ. No. 2016-105 Order Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge determined that the requested attorneys’ fees should be reduced by $4,887.50 to exclude excessive charges. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_16-cv-00105/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_16-cv-00105-1.pdf
SHA-256 ae0fabe614d3d651d81449250732957b776a89231fc022823d706fa5873c4709
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-ae0fabe614d3
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM L. LAWRENCE, JR., EUTHAINE P.J. LAWRENCE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2016-105 ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEARANCES: A.J. Stone, III Adam Nicholas Marinelli Bolt Nagi PC St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Flagstar Bank, FSB. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court is the motion of Flagstar Bank, FSB, (“Flagstar”) that seeks attorney’s fees (the “fee petition”) from William L. Lawrence, Jr., and Euthaine P.J. Lawrence (collectively the “Lawrences”). Flagstar’s fee petition seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,750. The Court referred Flagstar’s fee petition to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. On September 5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Case: 3:16-cv-00105-CVG-RM Document #: 40 Filed: 09/20/18 Page 1 of 3 Flagstar Bank, PSC v. William L. Lawrence, Jr., et al. Civ. No. 2016-105 Order Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge determined that the requested attorneys’ fees should be reduced by $4,887.50 to exclude excessive charges. The parties filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Litigants may make “specific written objections” to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). When no objection to a magistrate’s report and recommendation is made the district court reviews the report and recommendation for plain error. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (“While . . . [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] may not require, in the absence of objections, the district court to review the magistrate’s report before accepting it, we believe that the better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.”); see also Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) aff'd, 276 Fed. App'x 125 (3d Cir. 2008)(explaining that, by failing to object to a Case: 3:16-cv-00105-CVG-RM Document #: 40 Filed: 09/20/18 Page 2 of 3 Flagstar Bank, PSC v. William L. Lawrence, Jr., et al. Civ. No. 2016-105 Order portion of a report and recommendation, the litigant “waived its right to have this Court conduct a de novo review,” and that in those circumstances, “the scope of [the court’s] review is far more limited and is conducted under the far more deferential standard of ‘plain error’ ”). Having reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no error. The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation docketed at ECF Number 39 is ADOPTED; it is further ORDERED that the motion for attorney’s fees and costs docketed at ECF Number 34 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; it is further ORDERED that the Lawrences shall be liable to Flagstar for attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,862.50. S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge Case: 3:16-cv-00105-CVG-RM Document #: 40 Filed: 09/20/18 Page 3 of 3