From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hampel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Jan 24, 2012
CASE NO. 11-61620-CIV-DIMITROULEAS (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 11-61620-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

01-24-2012

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NOREEN HAMPEL, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees [DE 13], filed herein on November 21, 2011, and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow, dated January 6, 2012. [DE 17]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).

Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Motion should be DENIED, and that the Court should also decline to award attorney's fees to the Plaintiff for the defense of the instant motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report [DE 17] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED;

2. Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees [DE 13] is hereby DENIED;

3. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees for the defense of the instant motion is also DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 24th day of January, 2012.

______________________

WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

United States District Judge

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of record


Summaries of

Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hampel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Jan 24, 2012
CASE NO. 11-61620-CIV-DIMITROULEAS (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2012)
Case details for

Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hampel

Case Details

Full title:GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NOREEN HAMPEL, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Date published: Jan 24, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 11-61620-CIV-DIMITROULEAS (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2012)

Citing Cases

NCC Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Lemberg & Assocs., LLC

"Courts consistently have held that 'strict compliance with Rule 11 is mandatory.'" Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v.…

Alburquerque v. The De Moya Grp.

Thus, it is not true that there was absolutely no legal or factual basis to support a causal…