LongeviQuest, LLC v. Kroczek

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 24-81129-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
LONGEVIQUEST, LLC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WACLAW JAN KROCZEK,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 26]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ryan M. McCabe’s Report
and Recommendation (“the Report”), issued on October 2, 2025 [ECF No. 26]. 	The Report
recommends that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (the “Motion”) be granted in
part and denied in part [ECF No. 24]. 	Objections to the Report were due on October 16, 2025
[ECF No. 26 pp. 7–8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 26
p. 8]. 	Upon review, the Report is ACCEPTED [ECF No. 26]; Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in accordance
with the Report and this Order.
LEGAL STANDARDS
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file
specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation
to which objection is made. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822
(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court
reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject,
Case 9:24-cv-81129-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 1 of 2

CASE NO. 24-81129-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
2
or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report,
the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the
record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.
DISCUSSION
The Report recommends that Plaintiff be awarded $22,317.75 in attorneys’ fees, an amount
determined in the Report to be reasonable [ECF No. 24 pp. 5–7 (finding Plaintiff’s proposed
attorneys’ fees for four attorneys on the case—which totaled to $24,797.50—“well within the
range of rates ordinarily charged in this community for legal services,” but reducing that total
number by 10% due to certain billing deficiencies like multiple timekeepers billing for the same
task)]. No party objected to this conclusion, and the Court sees no clear basis to disturb it.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 26 pp. 1–8], it is ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 26] is ACCEPTED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED IN
PART.
3. 	Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $22,317.75 [ECF No. 26], to
be paid by Defendant within 90 days of this Order.
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 20th day of January 2026.
________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 9:24-cv-81129-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 2 of 2