Lapinski v. St. Croix Condominium Association, Inc. et al

Filing 176

ORDER denying 175 Motion for Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 9/18/2018. (SCM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

JAMES F. LAPINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-1418-Orl-40GJK

ST.
CROIX
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., ESTATE OF
DOUGLAS COOK, FIFTH DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS OF FLORIDA,
FLORIDA SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, VOLUSIA
COUNTY,
R.
BROOKS
CASEY,
JENNIFER CAMPEN, JOSEPH BANDY,
GARY CHANDLER, JERRY AZEFF,
JOHN WENDER, SANDI DEMBINSKY,
DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, FL and
ESTATE OF MICHEAL KENNEDY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Amended Objection to
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Motion to “Lower Granted
Attorneys’ Fees” (Doc. 175), filed September 17, 2018, which the Court construes as a
motion for reconsideration. Defendants did not file a response, and the Court does not
require one to resolve this motion. Upon consideration, the motion is due to be denied.
Defendants filed a motion for attorney fees seeking an award of $20,714.50. (Doc.
156). The Court granted Defendants’ motion upon a finding that the hours and rates used
to calculate the $20,714.50 award were reasonable. (Doc. 169). Plaintiff filed an objection
to the order, requesting the award be reduced to an amount of $4,784. (Doc. 175, p. 2).

Plaintiff complains the fees are “erroneous, duplicative and inflated/excessive.” (Id.)
Plaintiff specifically objects to the Court’s award for Defendant Counsel R. Brooks
Casey’s fees, which Plaintiff describes as “unnecessary [and] excessive.” (Id. at p. 1–2).
Plaintiff further claims that Casey “stated repeatedly in filings . . . [that] he will not charge
fees for his work as a Defendant,” but fails to cite to any filings as evidence of this claim.
(Id. at p. 1). Plaintiff also marks up the Court’s findings of reasonable hours and rates,
which he substitutes with his own numbers. (Id. at p. 8). Plaintiff does not state the
rationale or calculation for his substituted numbers. (Id. at p. 8).
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Monticello Ins. Co. v. Dynabilt Mfg. Co.,
Inc., No. 605CV548ORL19DAB, 2005 WL 3019241, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2005).
“There are three grounds for reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Id. Reconsideration of a prior order requires the moving party to “set
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature.” Id.
Plaintiff has failed to establish grounds for reconsideration. See Monticello Ins. Co.,
2005 WL 3019241, at *2; (Doc. 169). Plaintiff offers no new evidence, cites no changes
in law, and does not establish any need to remedy an error or injustice. Plaintiff simply
relies on conclusory language to describe the fees as “unnecessary . . . erroneous,
duplicative[,] and inflated/excessive.” (Doc. 175, p. 2). Plaintiff fails to explain what about
the fees makes them “unnecessary . . . erroneous, duplicative[,] and inflated/excessive.”
(See id. at p. 2). Plaintiff claims Defendant Counsel R. Brooks Casey would “not charge
fees for his work as a Defendant,” but he does not provide evidence to support this claim.

2

(See id. at p. 2). Similarly, Plaintiff substitutes the Court’s findings of reasonable hours
and rates with his own numbers, but does not explain the method or rationale for his
calculations. (See id. at p. 8). Without justification for the conclusory language and
substituted hours and rates, Plaintiff’s characterizations of the fees are merely bare
descriptions.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting
Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 175) is DENIED.
Plaintiff also moves to “Deny and Strike” Defendants’ Post Judgment Request for
Production of Documents to Plaintiff James F. Lapinski. (See id. at p. 2). Plaintiff does not
include the entire document he wishes to “deny and strike,” and he further fails to provide
any justification for the Court to do so. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to “Deny and
Strike” Defendants’ Post Judgment Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff
James F. Lapinski (See id. at p. 2) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 18, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

3