Castor v. City of Plantation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case Number: 24-cv-61960-MARTINEZ/VALLE CLEMENT CASTOR, Plaintiff, CITY OF PLANTATION, ef al., Defendants. / ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Alicia O. Valle, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Satisfaction of Judgment (“Motion”), (ECF No. 17). (ECF No. 19.) On July 22, 2025, Judge Valle filed an R&R, (ECF No. 22), recommending that the Motion be denied as premature and that unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties, as soon as practicable, Defendants deposit the amount of the Judgment, plus post-judgment interest, into the Court Registry. This Court has considered the R&R, Defendants’ Objection, (ECF No. 23), Plaintiff's Notice of Non-Objection, (ECF No. 24), and Defendants’ Supplemental Notice in Support of its Objections, (ECF No. 25), pertinent portions of the record, applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised of the premises. For the reasons stated herein, this Court ADOPTS Judge Valle’s R&R and DENIES Defendants’ Motion as premature. In October 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the City of Plantation and its officers, alleging violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and related state-law causes of action. (ECF No. 1.) On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment and Request for Clerk’s Entry of Judgment. (ECF No. 14.) Accordingly, the Court entered an Order on Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment and Directing Clerk’s Entry of Judgment. (ECF No. 15.) Shortly thereafter, a dispute ensued between the parties regarding the process for delivery of the Judgment proceeds, entitlement to post-judgment interest, and the amount of any such post-judgment interest. (ECF No. 22.) Judge Valle found that the twelve-day delay between the Clerk’s entry of Judgment and Defendants’ tender of a check entitled Plaintiff to post-judgment interest, and that Plaintiff had the right to refuse Defendants’ tender of the check that did not include post-judgment interest. (ECF No. 22) (citing DCC Constructors, Inc. v. Yacht Club Se., Inc., 839 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) and Rissman v. Kilbourne, 643 So. 2d 1136, 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). This Court agrees. However, since the filing of Judge Valle’s R&R and Defendants’ Objections, the parties have subsequently agreed that “no funds need be deposited in the Court’s Registry, and that Defendants are entitled to a Satisfaction of Judgment upon providing certified funds in the amount of $373.50.” (ECF No. 25.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: Ie United States Magistrate Judge Valle’s Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Ze Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Satisfaction of Judgment, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED as premature. Defendants shall be entitled to a Satisfaction of Judgment upon providing certified funds in the amount of $373.50 as soon as practicable. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 3 day of August, 2025. C } a G Muse JOSE E. MARTINEZ Copies provided to: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Magistrate Judge Valle All Counsel of Record