Enjolique Aytch Lett

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida magistrate 5 signed orders read

How Judge Lett decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In a pretrial-detention proceeding under 18 U.S.C. 3142 she parses the grounds separately, denying detention on dangerousness where no firearm was recovered but crafting a strict multi-condition release package where obstruction and nonappearance risk are shown.

“the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett’s Order denying the Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention.”

Cautions

Applies the FAA's heavy presumption in favor of confirming arbitration awards, rejecting vacatur theories under 9 U.S.C. 10(a): an arbitrator's legal error is not grounds for vacatur, and alleged perjury must be materially related to a fair hearing.

“the Undersigned hereby recommends that the Motion to Vacate be DENIED and the Motion to Confirm be GRANTED.”

Willing to recommend 'exceptional case' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and 28 U.S.C. 1927 where a patent plaintiff asserts already-invalidated claims, pleads a shotgun complaint, and de facto lead counsel drives vexatious litigation.

“the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees Against Plaintiff and award the amount of $33,986.43 under the provision for an “exceptional” case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and $50,619.59 under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.”

Scrutinizes fee applications for billing judgment, reducing awards for duplicative staffing, quarter-hour billing, and vague entries while preserving privilege over disclosed invoices.

“because some of the entries include duplicative work ... the Court imposes a 5% fee reduction. ... the majority of the Yanowitch entries are billed in increments of .25 ... and a number of the entries are vague ... Accordingly, the Court imposes a 25% reduction”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Bakhai v. BDO USA, P.C.
1:24-cv-23896-RKA · 2025-06-06
Motion to vacate arbitration award (defendant) Denied

“the Undersigned hereby recommends that the Motion to Vacate be DENIED and the Motion to Confirm be GRANTED.”

Motion to confirm arbitration award (plaintiff) Granted
mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida
1:23-cv-23427-RNS · 2025-03-11
Motion for attorney fees (defendant) Granted

“the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees Against Plaintiff and award the amount of $33,986.43 under the provision for an “exceptional” case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and $50,619.59 under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.”

Bluestarexpo, Inc. v. Enis
1:21-cv-20875-CMA · 2025-06-26
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court GRANT the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 272] and enter judgment for Plaintiff BlueStar Expo, Inc. in the amount of $300,000 plus post-judgment interest.”

United States v. Valcourt
1:25-cr-20143-BB · 2025-04-17
Motion for pretrial detention (prosecution) Denied

“the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett’s Order denying the Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention.”

Bakhai v. BDO USA, P.C.
1:24-cv-23896-RKA · 2026-07-02
Motion for attorney fees (Petitioner Kashyap Bakhai) Granted in part

“Petitioner's Verified Motion for an Award of Fees and Sanctions and Motion to Compel Disclosure from BDO [ECF No. 179] is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The Court AWARDS Petitioner fees in the amount of $222,100.50 as it relates to the Coffey Burlington firm. 2. The Court AWARDS Petitioner fees in the amount of $38,854.69 as it relates to the Yanowitch & Co. firm.”

Motion for sanctions (Petitioner Kashyap Bakhai) Denied

“The Court DENIES Petitioner's request to impose further sanctions and compel Respondent to identify the number of timekeepers who billed time to this matter and the total fees incurred.”

Motions to compel (Petitioner Kashyap Bakhai) Denied
Motion for protective order (Petitioner Kashyap Bakhai) Granted

“Petitioner's Motion for an Order Preserving Attorney-Client and Work Product Protections, or in the Alternative, for an In-Camera Inspection of Unredacted Attorney Invoices [ECF No. 176] is GRANTED insofar as the attorney-client and work product privileges are preserved, and the disclosure of billing records did not waive those protections.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

All reviewed cases are pending direct or magistrate-duty assignments, so this sample does not yet support terminated-case durations or disposition figures.

Put Judge Lett's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Lett actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Lett's own signed orders and cites them.