Regions Bank v. Kaplan et al

Filing 624

ORDER denying without prejudice 358 Motion for Attorney Fees. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/31/2016. (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
REGIONS BANK, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP

MARVIN KAPLAN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
MARVIN I. KAPLAN, et al.
Counterclaim/Crossclaim Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT NICHOLAS SHAW, et al.,
Counterclaim/Crossclaim Defendants.
/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 358
Dkt. 369

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Response

Counterclaim/Crossclaim Plaintiffs Marvin I. Kaplan, R1A Palms, LLC, Triple Net
Exchange, LLC, MK Investing, LLC and BNK Smith, LLC, move for the award of
attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $34,947.50 in favor of
Counterclaim/Crossclaim Plaintiffs and against Crossclaim Defendant Bridgeview Bank
Group (“BBG”), pursuant to Sec. 772.104(3), Florida Statutes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and
l

Case No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP
Local Rule 4.18.
Counterclaim/Crossclaim Plaintiffs asserted claims against Bridgeview Bank
Group in the Amended Counterclaim/Crossclaims (Dkt. 93). These claims included a
RICO claim (Count IV), a RICO conspiracy claim (Count V), a Florida RICO claim
(Count VI) and a Florida RICO conspiracy claim (Count VII).

The Court initially denied dismissal of these claims. The Court reexamined the
disposition of the RICO claims in the context of Counterclaim/Crossclaim Defendant
Starr’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court determined that the “continuity” element
could not be met, and granted Starr’s Motion for Reconsideration, dismissing the RICO
claims. (Dkt. 351). Thereafter, the Court granted BBG’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Dkt. 378), dismissing the RICO claims against BBG.
In response to the Amended Counterclaim/Crossclaims, Bridgeview Bank Group
filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim and Crossclaim (Dkt. 271). BBG’s
Counterclaim and Crossclaim against R1A, TNE, MKI and BNK included a Florida
RICO claim (Count I) and a Florida RICO conspiracy claim (Count II). The Court
granted dismissal of these claims (Dkt. 353) for the same reason as in the Order
granting Starr’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 351) in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss
of Counterclaim/Crossclaim Defendants R1A, TNE, MKI and BNK, although the
continuity issue was not raised in their Motion.
After consideration, the Court denies the Motion for Attorney’s Fees without
prejudice. If appropriate, R1 A, TNE, MKI and BNK may renew their Motion for
Attorney’s Fees after the entry of a final judgment. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Dkt. 358) is denied without
prejudice. The Motion may be renewed after the entry of a final judgment.

2

Case No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida on this 31st day of
March, 2016.

Copies to:
All parties and counsel of record

3