govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_23-cv-22379-8

United States District Court 
for the 
Southern District of Florida 
 
Naval Logistic, Inc., doing business 
as Middle Point Marina, Plaintiff 
 
v. 
 
M/V Family Time, in rem, and 
Andrew Vilenchik, in personam, 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Civil Action No. 23-22379-Civ-Scola 
 
 
In Admiralty 
Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations 
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué A. 
Lett for a report and recommendations on Plaintiff Naval Logistics Inc.’s motion 
for attorney’s fees and costs. (See Mot., ECF No. 129, Order of Referral, ECF 
No. 131.) Judge Lett issued a report, recommending that the Court grant the 
motion in part. (R&R, ECF No. 165.) Specifically, Judge Lett recommended that 
the Court cut from the Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees twenty hours of 
work from associate fees and ten hours from partner fees “to adequately reflect 
the appropriate amount of time that should have been billed in this case.” (Id. 
at 8.) Judge Lett therefore recommended awarding the Plaintiff $118,197.11 in 
attorney’s fees and costs. (Id. at 9.) The Plaintiff did not file any objections.  
The Defendants, Andrew Vilenchik and M/V Family Time, filed 
objections. (Defs.’ Obj., ECF No. 176.) The Plaintiff filed a response to the 
Defendants’ objections. (Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 209.) After reviewing the filings, 
the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Lett’s report and 
recommendations (ECF No. 165), overrules the Defendants’ objections (ECF 
No. 176), and grants in part the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs 
(ECF No. 129). Moreover, the Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 218) is 
denied as moot. 
1. Legal Standard 
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the 
magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically 
identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which 
objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 
F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 
(11th Cir. 1989)) (cleaned up). Objections are “improper” if they amount to 
“nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in 
Case 1:23-cv-22379-FAM   Document 221   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2025   Page 1 of 5
the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge,” as the “parties are not 
to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to a [report 
and recommendation].” Melillo v. United States, 2018 WL 4258355, at *1 (S.D. 
Fla. Sept. 6, 2018) (Bloom, J.) (quoting Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, 2012 WL 
3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (Moreno, J.)). The objections must also 
present “supporting legal authority.” L. R. 4(b). Once a district court receives 
“objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a 
de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is 
made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or 
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-
84 (quoting Heath, 863 F.2d at 822) (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to 
object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions may be reviewed 
for clear error. Id. at 784. 
2. Analysis 
The Defendants’ sole objection is to Judge Lett’s determination of the 
reasonable number of hours expended by the Plaintiff’s attorneys. (See 
generally Defs.’ Objs.) Therefore, the Court reviews that portion of Judge Lett’s 
report de novo, and the remainder for clear error. See Macort, 208 F. App’x at 
783-84. 
A. Reasonable Hours Expended  
The party claiming attorney’s fees, in this case the Plaintiff, bears the 
burden of providing the Court with sufficient information to assess the time 
claimed for each activity. See Norman v. Hous. Auth. Of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 
1292, 1301 (11th Cir. 1988). If the Court finds that some hours are excessive 
or redundant, they must be excluded from the final billing. Id. at 1303. In 
determining the appropriate number of hours, the Court may conduct an hour-
by-hour analysis or reduce the total number of hours with an across the board 
cut. See Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2008). 
Courts have broad discretion in choosing either method, as there is no specific 
formula to follow. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983). 
Consequently, the goal for trial courts deciding on a reasonable number of 
hours is not to resolve every discrepancy, but rather to arrive at a fair number 
of hours worked. See Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). 
After reviewing the 80.1 hours disputed by the Defendants, the Court 
does not find them all to be unduly duplicative or excessive. As noted by Judge 
Lett, it is standard practice for associates to have their work reviewed by senior 
attorneys, and multiple attorneys billing for the same matter is not inherently 
Case 1:23-cv-22379-FAM   Document 221   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2025   Page 2 of 5
duplicative. (See R&R, at 8.) Here, the Court finds that an across the board cut 
of 20 hours from the associate fees and 10 hours from the partner fees results 
in an appropriate amount of time billed and satisfies the Court’s Hensley 
obligation. 
In their objections, the Defendants point to two time entries in particular 
that, in their view, should have been addressed directly. (Defs.’ Obj. at 4). The 
Court disagrees. Judge Lett considered these entries, along with all the other 
hours in dispute, when she determined the number of hours that should be cut 
across the board. (See R&R, at 7-8.) Therefore, after reviewing the record and 
briefing de novo, the Court adopts Judge Lett’s analysis regarding the 
reasonable number of hours in full.  
B. Review of Non-Objected to Portions of Judge Lett’s Report 
The Defendants do not object to Judge Lett’s report and recommendation 
on their noncompliance with Local Rule 7.3(b) or on the reasonableness of the 
hourly rates requested by the Plaintiff. (See generally Defs.’ Objs.) Therefore, 
the Court reviews these portions for clear error. The Court has considered 
Judge Lett’s report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The Court 
finds Judge Lett’s report and recommendation on the Defendants’ 
noncompliance with local rules and the reasonable hourly rate for Plaintiff’s 
attorneys to be cogent and compelling. The Court therefore affirms and adopts 
these portions of Judge Lett’s report and recommendation in full.  
C. Defendant Andrew Vilenchik’s Supplemental Objections 
On June 10, 2025, the Court granted the Defendant Andrew Vilenchik’s 
counsel’s motion to withdraw. (Omnibus Order, ECF No. 185.) That same day, 
Vilenchik notified the Court that he would proceed pro se. (Notice of 
Appearance Pro Se, ECF No. 183.)  
On June 13, 2025, Vilenchik filed his own objections to Judge Lett’s 
report and recommendations. (See Def.’s Supplemental Objs., ECF No. 207.) 
Vilenchik also filed a reply to the Plaintiff’s response to the Defendants’ 
objections. (See Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 211.) For the reasons detailed below, 
these supplemental filings do not alter the Court’s analysis. 
First, Vilenchik’s objections are untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) is clear: 
a party must file its objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 
recommendations within fourteen days after being served a copy of the report. 
Vilenchik was represented by counsel when his timely objections were filed. 
Moreover, Vilenchik does not cite to any authority allowing for untimely 
Case 1:23-cv-22379-FAM   Document 221   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2025   Page 3 of 5
supplemental objections because the objecting party subsequently proceeded 
pro se.  
Second, the federal rules do not permit a reply to be filed in support of 
objections to a report and recommendations. See Kengne v. Freeman, 1:22-CV-
2653-SEG-CMS, 2022 WL 22434271, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2022) (“The 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize a reply to a response to 
objections to an R&R, and plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file one.”). 
Third, Vilenchik’s objections fail on the merits. The Court takes each in 
turn. 
Vilenchik argues that “Plaintiff’s improper arrest of the vessel . . . created 
a self-inflicted dispute.” (Def.’s Supp. Objs., at 2.) However, the arrest and 
subsequent sale were ordered by this Court. (Order Granting Mot. for 
Interlocutory Sale, ECF No. 50.) Furthermore, that order was recently affirmed 
by the Eleventh Circuit. See Naval Logistics, Inc. v. M/V Family Time, et al., No. 
24-13172, ECF No. 48 (11th Cir. June 23, 2025). Just because Vilenchik 
believes the arrest and sale were improper does not make them so.   
Vilenchik also believes that the attorney’s fees are “disproportional[] 
under Hensley,” there was “[e]xcessive and redundant billing,” and that there 
was “[b]lock bulling and [v]ague [e]ntries.” (Id. at 2-3.) But the Court has 
already reviewed the record and Judge Lett’s analysis under Hensley. The 
Court, for the reasons already discussed above, agrees with Judge Lett’s 
determination of the appropriate reduction in fees Furthermore, Vilenchik’s 
objections are vague and conclusory as they fail to cite to the factual record.  
Finally, Vilenchik believes that the Plaintiff’s counsel has improperly 
billed for post-judgment collection and discovery abuse. (Id. at 3.) However, this 
argument presupposes that the Court agrees with Vilenchik that the Plaintiff’s 
counsel has engaged in abusive conduct. Vilenchik, despite multiple attempts, 
has not shown that the Plaintiff’s counsel is seeking anything but proper post-
judgment information.  
For these reasons, Vilenchik’s supplemental objections and reply in 
support of his objections do not alter the Court’s analysis. Therefore, the 
Plaintiff’s motion to strike these filings (ECF No. 218) is denied as moot.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 1:23-cv-22379-FAM   Document 221   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2025   Page 4 of 5
3. Conclusion 
The Court affirms and adopts Judge Lett’s report and recommendations 
(ECF No. 165) and overrules the Defendants’ objections (ECF No. 176), thus 
granting in part the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs and awards 
the amount $118,197.11. (ECF No. 129). Finally, the Plaintiff’s motion to 
strike (ECF No. 218) is denied as moot.  
 
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on July 1, 2025. 
 
       ________________________________ 
       Robert N. Scola, Jr. 
       United States District Judge 
 
 
Case 1:23-cv-22379-FAM   Document 221   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2025   Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight