DM Management Transportation Services, Inc. v. US Mattress Depot et al

Filing 56

ORDER re 51 Plaintiff's Motion for Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, 53 Defendants' Response. It is ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a reply brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length, addressing the issues outlined in this Order. See PDF Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price on 8/29/2024. (MKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

DM MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:22-cv-2291-PGB-LHP

US MATTRESS DEPOT and DEAL
BEDS, LLC,
Defendants

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (Doc. No. 51), and Defendants’
Response (Doc. No. 53). Upon consideration, the undersigned finds reply briefing
from Plaintiff appropriate, directed to certain targeted issues raised by Defendants’
response, and in light of Defendants’ subsequent Motion for Rehearing Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Doc. No. 52) and Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 54).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date of
this Order, Plaintiff shall file a reply brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length,
addressing the following:

1.

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff is not entitled to fees pursuant to

the terms of the February 9, 2024 email agreement 1 because “Plaintiff failed
to comply with the procedural modality set forth in the Email Agreement,”
such that Plaintiff failed to file an “Affidavit of Default concurrently with the
Motion to Enforce that recited the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with
seeking the judgment.” Doc. No. 53, at 6–7, 9; see also Doc. No. 31-3.
2.

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff is not entitled to fees pursuant to

the terms of the February 9, 2024 email because the email’s express language
states that the recoverable attorneys’ fees and costs are only those associated
with seeking judgment “incurred after entry into the complete and mutual
release and settlement agreement” and the February 9, 2024 email also states
that “each side will bear their own fees and costs through execution of the
complete and mutual release and settlement agreement.” Doc. No. 53, at 7,
9; see also Doc. No. 31-3.
3.

Whether, given that Defendants have filed both a Rule 59(e) Motion

and Notice of Appeal with regard to the Court’s Order finding an enforceable
settlement agreement, and Plaintiff’s request for entitlement to fees is based

By separate Order, the presiding District Judge already determined that the
February 9, 2024 email contained the essential terms of the parties’ agreement, enforced
same, and directed the entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants.
Doc. No. 48.
1

-2-

on that settlement agreement, the Court should defer consideration of the
issue of attorneys’ fees pending the outcome of Defendants’ appeal. See, e.g.,
E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-450-SPC-NPM, 2022 WL
19914347, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2022) (deferring issue of attorney’s fees
pending resolution of Rule 59(e) motion and appeal to avoid adjudication of
an issue that may become moot, recalculation of any fee award, and
inefficient piecemeal litigation); see also, e.g., Action Nissan, Inc. v. Hyundai
Motor Am. & Genesis Motor Am., No. 6:18-cv-380-WWB-EJK, 2022 WL
17409415, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2022); Yellowpages Photos, Inc. v. YP, LLC, No.
8:17-cv-764-T-36JSS, 2020 WL 6729719, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2020), report
and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 6728846 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2020);
Truesdell v. Thomas, No. 5:13-cv-552-Oc-10PRL, 2016 WL 7049252, at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Dec. 5, 2016).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 29, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-