C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC
v.
GORDON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a plaintiff cannot recover attorney's fees for work performed in thirteen different lawsuits from distinct defendants, and the plaintiff failed to provide adequate records to support the requested fees.
Plaintiff sought attorney's fees for work performed in this case and twelve other lawsuits, arguing the work was inextricably intertwined. The magistr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intertwined Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 37) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 38). On referral, Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation denying Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 44). Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report (Doc. 45) and Defendants filed a response (Doc. 46). Upon de novo review of the above, the Report will be confirmed and adopted. In resolving objections to the recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires independent consideration of factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F. 2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
On May 24, 2021, the Court remanded this case to state court and granted Plaintiff’s request for fees. In its motion, Plaintiff seeks fees incurred for work performed in this case and twelve other lawsuits where Plaintiff’s counsel sought remand. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the work performed in this case is
“inextricably intertwined” with the work he performed in those other lawsuits and he deserves to be fully compensated for that work here. The Report found that Plaintiff’s calculations were unsupported and recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation is legally and factually sound. Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants must compensate Plaintiff for work performed in thirteen different lawsuits is legally unsupported.1 And Plaintiff failed to submit adequate records to support an award of fees. Plaintiff
OVERRULED.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 37) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on November 30, 2021.
Sig pet > 4) finch penne IGG
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983)
- Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. OF Educ. OF State OF Ga., 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)