On October 23, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No.34, and Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claimsagainst Defendant Andrew Lum. Doc. No. 36. On January 16, 2014, the partiesreached a settlement on all issues except payment of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees,
Doc. No. 52, Minutes, and the pending motions were terminated.
Doc. No. 53,Entering Order. On January 21, 2014, the parties filed a Stipulation dismissing allclaims, but acknowledging Plaintiffs’ right to file a subsequent motion for attorneys’ fees. Doc. No. 55. The underlying Motion for Attorneys’ Feesfollowed, in which Plaintiffs sought an award of $64,690.29. Doc. No. 56. After the F&R recommended that Plaintiffs be awarded attorneys’ fees of $22,064.39,Doc. No. 64, Plaintiffs filed their Objections on May 5, 2014, Doc. No. 65, and anErrata on May 6, 2014. Doc. No. 66. Defendants filed a Response on May 21,2014, Doc. No. 69, and Plaintiffs filed a Reply on May 27, 2014. Doc. No. 70. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this matter suitable for dispositionwithout a hearing.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations, the district court must review de novo those portions to which
Case 1:12-cv-00469-JMS-RLP Document 71 Filed 06/19/14 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 1743