LEWIS
v.
SURAJ PROPERTIES INC.
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 defendants, despite being the prevailing parties, are not entitled to attorney's fees because no statutory basis exists for such an award in this case.
Defendants were the prevailing parties in two related cases brought by different plaintiffs. Defendants moved for attorney's fees.…
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 Prevailing Party Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Although Defendants are the prevailing parties in both the cases brought by Eric W. Schofield, Sr. (18cv30) and by Amanda Lewis (18cv42), there is no statutory basis to grant them fees. Accordingly, the motions for fees at docket 153 in Schofield, Sr.’s case and docket 83 in Lewis’s case are denied. The Court finds cogent and apt the reasoning of Judge Howard in Kubiak v. S.W. Cowboy, Inc., 3:12-cv-1306-J-34JRK, 2017 WL 1080000 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2017). As the complaints are pled, section 448.08 of the Florida Statutes is not implicated. Neither the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 216(b)) nor the Florida Minimum Wage Act (Fla. Stat. § 448.110) provides attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Dkt. 83) is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 16, 2019.
s/William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record