KADIYALA
v.
PUPKE
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 affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and costs following a prior judgment. A Magistrate Judge recommended an award of $484,623.95 in fees and $13,539.4…
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 Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
August 15, 2024, has been filed, recommending that the district court award Plaintiff attorneys' fees in the amount of $484,623.95 and non-taxable costs in the amount of $13,539.40, for a total award of $498,163.35 against Defendant Mark Pupke.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the entire file, the record herein and the objections filed by Defendant Mark Pupke. [fn 1] The Court overrules Mr. Pupke's objections. The objections attack the underlying judgment which has been affirmed on appeal. See Kadiyala v. Pupke, No. 22-10211, 2024 WL 33910 (11th Cir. Jan. 3, 2024). As such, it is now the law of the case and the Court is not free to alter or amend the judgment, especially on a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Alphamed, Inc. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 367 F. 3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, both district courts and appellate courts are generally bound by a prior appellate decision in the same case.”); Litman v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 825 F. 2d 1506, 1511 (11th Cir.1987) (“The law of the case doctrine, self-imposed by the courts, operates to create efficiency, finality and obedience within the judicial system.").
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1) The Report is AFFIRMED.
2) Plaintiff's Renewed Verified Motion for Attorney's Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses and Costs (DE 316) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in the total amount of $498,163.35.
2
3) The Court will separately issue Judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 30th day of August, 2024.
KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
3
[fn 1]: The Court construes Defendant Mark Pupke's motion for reconsideration (DE 346) as objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kadiyala v. Pupke, 2024 WL 33910 (S.D. Fla. 2024)…the entire file, the record herein and the objections filed by Defendant Mark Pupke.1 The Court overrules Mr. Pupke’s objections. The objections attack the underlying judgment which has been affirmed on appeal. See Kadiyala v. Pupke, No. 22-10211, 2024 WL 33910 (11th Cir. Jan. 3, 2024). As such, it is now the law of the case and the Court is not free to alter or amend the judgment, especially on a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Alphamed, Inc. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 367 F. 3d 1280, 1285 (11th Ci…
-
Simmons v. USI Ins. Servs. LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025)…no award of duplicative damages for the same injury. A jury may allocate damages under different theories or causes of action “so long as the jury intended that result, and it is supported by the evidence at trial.” Kadiyala v. Pupke, No. 22-10211, 2024 WL 33910 (11th Cir. Jan. 3, 2024); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241, 1246 (Fla 3d DCA 1985) (“When the total award is supported by substantial, competent evidence, the jury's appointment of damages does not affect the integrity of the verdict."); Coquina…
Authorities Cited
- Litman v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 825 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1987)
- Alphamed v. B. Braun Med., Inc., 367 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Kadiyala v. Pupke, 2024 WL 33910 (S.D. Fla. 2024)