Barnett v. MacArthur et al

Filing 326

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 323 Joint Motion to Stay of Plaintiff's Motion for Entitlement to Fees and Costs Pending Exhaustion of Post Trial Motions and Appeal; denying without prejudice 312 Motion for Ruling on Entitlem ent to Prevailing Party Attorney Fees, Expenses, and Costs on a Final or Interim Basis. The CLERK shall not enter a bill of costs in relation to any of the proposed bills of costs currently pending on the docket (i.e., Docs. 171; 218; 314). The Court will cancel the February 22, 2024 hearing by separate notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick on 2/21/2024. (TNP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
SEANA BARNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:15-cv-469-RBD-DCI

DENNIS M. LEMMA,
Defendant.

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the
following motions:
MOTION:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling on Entitlement to Prevailing
Party Attorney Fees, Expenses, and Costs on a Final or
Interim Basis (Doc. 312)

FILED:

February 7, 2024

MOTION:

Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Entitlement to Fees and Costs Pending Exhaustion of Post
Trial Motions and Appeal (Doc. 323)

FILED:

February 16, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling on Entitlement
(Doc. 312) is DENIED without prejudice; and the Parties’ Joint Motion (Doc.
323) is GRANTED in part.
This case has a long procedural history and appeared to be at its conclusion at different
points.

On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff Seana Barnett (Plaintiff) brought this action against

Defendants Sara MacArthur, individually (MacArthur), and Donald Eslinger, in his official

capacity as Sheriff of Seminole County, Florida. Doc. 1. Dennis M. Lemma (Defendant Sheriff
Lemma) became the Sheriff during litigation and the Court granted the request to substitute him
as the Defendant. Doc. 157. The parties litigated the matter and the Court eventually granted
summary judgment in part against Plaintiff but allowed her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unlawful arrest and
detention claim and state-law false imprisonment claim to proceed to trial. Doc. 111. The Court,
however, found that the Sheriff could not be liable under § 1983 pursuant to Monell v Dept. of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) because his “hold policy” was permitted under Florida law.
Id. The jury subsequently returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants on the two claims that
survived summary judgment. Doc. 169.
Plaintiff appealed the Court’s summary judgment decision on some of her claims and the
denial of her motion for a new trial. Docs. 185. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Sheriff Lemma
on the Monell claim and remanded the matter for a trial on that claim. Docs. 188, 189. Plaintiff
then sought summary judgment on the Monell claim and the Court granted the request and
scheduled a jury trial on the issue of damages. Doc. 214. Upon another appeal, the Eleventh
Circuit again reversed and vacated the Court’s entry of summary judgment and remanded the
matter. Doc. 247.
The case proceeded to trial and a jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff on her Monell claim
against Defendant Sheriff Lemma and awarded $99,000 to Plaintiff. Doc. 309. Judgment was
entered and Plaintiff filed a Proposed Bill of Costs. Docs. 310, 314.
That brings the Court to Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Ruling on Entitlement to Prevailing
Party Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs on a Final or Interim Basis. Doc. 312 (the Motion for
Ruling on Entitlement). With respect to Local Rule 3.01(g), Plaintiff certified that she conferred

-2-

with opposing counsel and Defendant Sheriff Lemma takes the position that ruling on entitlement
to prevailing party fees should be delayed because he intends to file post-trial motions challenging
the jury’s verdict and appeal if his motions are denied. Id. at 8. As such, the Court set a hearing
on the Motion for Ruling on Entitlement and stayed Defendant Sheriff Lemma’s deadlines to
respond to Plaintiff’s request and to file a motion to review a bill of costs. Doc. 322.
The parties have now filed a Joint Motion for Stay of Plaintiff’s Motion for Entitlement to
Fees and Costs Pending Exhaustion of Post Trial Motions and Appeal. Doc. 323 (the Motion to
Stay). The parties state that counsel agree that the usual practice in the Middle District of Florida
is to postpone consideration of a motion for fees and costs. Id. at 2. The parties explain that
Defendant Sheriff Lemma intends to file post-trial motions and that there will be a possible appeal
by one or both parties. Id. Indeed, Defendant Sheriff Lemma has since filed a Notice of Appeal
as to the Judgment and a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, Motion
for New Trial. Docs. 324, 325.
Upon due consideration, the Court finds that consideration of attorney fees and costs is
premature and should be deferred. “[D]eferring ruling on a motion for attorney’s fees and costs
pending an appeal is a matter within the court’s discretion, and courts will defer ruling in the
interests of judicial economy.” Truesdell v. Thomas, 2016 WL 7049252, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5,
2016) (citations omitted). “Deferring ruling on the issue of attorney’s fees and costs would avoid
the risk of having to effectuate recalculation, repayment, reimbursement or an offset of such an
award later.” Id.
Further, “‘[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it
confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over the

-3-

aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” U.S. v. Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d 1529, 1532 (11th Cir.
1995) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)).
Given Defendant Sheriff Lemma’s appeal, the pendency of at least one post-judgment
motion, the potential for additional appeals from both sides, and the history of appellate activity in
this case, the Court finds that deferment on the issue of fees and costs is warranted. The Court,
however, is not inclined to simply stay consideration as the parties’ pending request. Instead,
denial without prejudice of the Motion for Ruling on Entitlement and an extension of the deadlines
associated with fees and costs is appropriate and will ensure that the Court has up-to-date briefing
after the exhaustion of any appeals. See Founders Ins. Co. v. Cortes-Garcia, 2013 WL 461731, at
*7-8 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) (noting that if an appeal is pending or other issues remain unresolved,
the proper procedure is to deny a motion for fees and costs pending a final resolution of the case).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling on Entitlement (Doc. 312) is DENIED without
prejudice;
2. the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay (Doc. 323) is GRANTED in part such that: the parties
must file any proposed bill of costs (pursuant to Rule 54)1 and any motion concerning
attorney fees and non-taxable costs (pursuant to Local Rule 7.01(b)) within thirty days
after either (1) the time to appeal the judgment in this case expires, or (2), the date of

1

Currently, there are three proposed bills of costs filed on the docket. Docs. 171; 218; 314. The
Clerk has not entered a bill of costs, so the time to file a motion to review has not been triggered.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54. This Order directs the Clerk not to enter a bill of costs as to any of the filed,
proposed bills of costs.
Any request for taxable costs must come via a new proposed bill of costs filed in accordance with
the deadline set forth in paragraph 2. above—the Court will not refer back to the prior proposed
bills of costs.

-4-

the dismissal of any appeal or the issuance of the mandate by the Circuit.2 The
remainder of the Motion to Stay (Doc. 323) is DENIED;
3. the CLERK shall not enter a bill of costs in relation to any of the proposed bills of
costs currently pending on the docket (i.e., Docs. 171; 218; 314); and
4. the Court will cancel the February 22, 2024 hearing by separate notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 21, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

2

If a contingency occurs that is not anticipated by this order, the parties may file a motion to clarify
or modify the briefing schedule.

-5-