Summary
awarding fees to the prevailing party for the expenses incurred hiring an expert to opine on the reasonableness of their fee request
Summary of this case from Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env't, Inc. v. Diesel Power Gear, LLCOpinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01215-WYD-KLM
10-16-2014
GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New York Mutual Life Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN WILDS, an individual, Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Amended Motion to Enforce Attorneys' Lien (ECF No. 56), filed on November 15, 2013, by Defendant/Counterclaimant's former counsel, Donald F. D'Antuono and Douglas A. Turner ("Movants"). This motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Mix, who issued a Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 65), filed August 12, 2014, and is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. sec 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), D.C.COLO.LCivR. 72.1.
Magistrate Judge Mix recommended therein that the Movants' Amended Motion to Enforce Attorneys' Lien be granted in part. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Mix recommended that the Movants' Amended Motion to Enforce Attorneys' Lien be granted to the extent that Movants be awarded $50,160.32, plus interest at the rate set by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, accruing from January 28, 2013. Magistrate Judge Mix further recommended that the $336,634.93 in the Court's Registry be distributed as follows: $50,160.32, plus interest at the rate set by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, accruing from January 28, 2013, to Movants and the remaining amount to Defendant/Counterclaimant, Susan Wilds.
Magistrate Judge Mix advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
In a letter dated August 20, 2014, Susan Wilds indicated that she had no objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation unless the recommendation was challenged by the Movants. (ECF No. 66). Since the Movants did not file an objection, I do not construe this letter as an objection to the recommendation.
Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
--------
Having reviewed the Recommendation (ECF No. 65), I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and sound.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of the matters before the Court, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Mix's Recommendation (ECF No. 65) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. As such, the Movants' Amended Motion to Enforce Attorneys' Lien (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Movants be awarded $50,160.32, plus interest at the rate set by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, accruing from January 28, 2013. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the $336,634.93 in the Court's Registry be distributed as follows: $50,160.32, plus interest at the rate set by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, accruing from January 28, 2013, to Movants and the remaining amount to Susan Wilds.
Dated: October 16, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE