Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Katz et al

Filing 87

ORDER denying as moot 85 Motion for relief from judgment; granting 86 Motion. On or before Friday, August 8, 2014, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a verified motion for fees and costs with supporting time sheets, rates, and authorities. On or before Wednesday, August 13, 2014, the parties are DIRECTED to submit a revised joint proposed judgment to the Chambers email. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/6/2014. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:13-cv-1236-Orl-37DAB

JIL K. KATZ; and JOSEPH E. PAPIN,
III,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Amended Motion
for Relief from Court’s Order Dated August 4, 2014 (Doc. 86), filed August 5, 2014.
The Court entered an Order sua sponte denying attorney’s fees for Plaintiff’s failure
to timely comply with the Court’s previous Order setting a motion deadline of July 28,
2014. (Doc. 84.) Plaintiff immediately filed the instant motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. 86.)
Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges her failure to comply with the Court’s Order and,
“[w]ith great humility,” asks the Court to relieve Plaintiff of the consequences of counsel’s
“inadvertent error” and “excusable neglect.” (Id. at 1.) In the Court’s experience, virtually
all error is inadvertent—whether neglect is excusable is more often in the eye of the
beholder. Lack of attention to detail in reading Court Orders is inexcusable absent some
circumstance sufficient to justify the careless conduct; this is the essence of the Pioneer
factors. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 385,
394–95 (1993).

An attorney who thoroughly read the Court’s Order simply could not think that the
July 28 deadline only applied to the depositing of the fund. 1 However, there have been
no prior instances in this litigation in which Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to comply with the
Court’s Orders or has delayed the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court accepts counsel’s
representation that the error was merely careless and finds in its discretion that the motion
is due to be granted. See Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 850
(11th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Amended Motion for Relief from Court’s Order
Dated August 4, 2014 (Doc. 86) is GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Court’s Order Dated
August 4, 2014 (Doc. 85) is DENIED AS MOOT.

3.

On or before Friday, August 8, 2014, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a

1

In addition to conceding her error, counsel also asserts that she “inadvertently
misinterpreted the Court’s instructions.” (Doc. 86, p. 3 (emphasis added).) The Court must
reject this contention. The relevant part of the decree read as follows:
On or before Monday, July 28, 2014:
a.
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to deposit the entirety of the fund, plus
any applicable interest, into the registry of the Court;
b.
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to send a proposed form of judgment
to the Chambers email address in Word format (including
proposed language regarding discharge and dismissal of
Plaintiff and injunctions against Defendants); and
c.
Plaintiff has leave to file a separate, fully documented motion
for attorney’s fees.
(Doc. 83, pp. 6–7.) The use of the colon, semicolons, subparagraphs, and conjunctive
made the Court’s intent crystal-clear. There is no room for interpretation in those
directions, nor is the fault on the part of the Court’s language. Counsel just did not read
the Order carefully.

2

verified motion for fees and costs with supporting time sheets, rates, and
authorities. That motion will be referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report
and Recommendation on entitlement and amount.
4.

Counsel for all parties are DIRECTED to immediately meet and confer, in
person, to attempt to resolve their differences with regard to the proposed
judgment that was submitted to the Chambers email. On or before
Wednesday, August 13, 2014, the parties are DIRECTED to submit a
revised joint proposed judgment to the Chambers email. Should the parties
be unable to agree, the Court will enter an appropriate judgment without
any further input from counsel.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 6, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3