Flushing Group, LLC v. Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. et al
Filing
89
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE OPPOSING DEFENDANTS FEE REQUEST 82 , AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER 83 . Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 4/25/2011. (dpv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-20732-CIV-LENARD/GARBER
FLUSHING GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER
WEISSLER ALHADEFF &
SITTERSON, P.A., CHAVA EVE
GENET and DAVID ARIE
MESSINGER,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER IMPOSING
SANCTIONS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
OPPOSING DEFENDANTS’ FEE REQUEST (D.E. 82), AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER (D.E. 83)
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Flushing Group, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”)
Objections to Magistrate’s Order Imposing Sanctions (“Objections,” D.E. 83), filed January
14, 2010. Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Objections (D.E. 85) on February
10, 2010. Despite the parties’ styling, the Objections are properly considered an appeal of
the Magistrate’s Judge’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the Order Imposing
Sanctions and in the Alternative, Plaintiff’s Response Opposing Defendants’ Fee Request
(D.E. 82), issued by Magistrate Judge Barry L. Garber on January 4, 2010.
This Court dismissed this action without prejudice on January 5, 2009. See Order
Dismissing Case, D.E. 70.) On January 27, 2009, Magistrate Judge Garber issued an Order
(D.E. 74) granting Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (D.E. 34) for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with discovery obligations. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions accompanied their
Motion to Compel (D.E. 34), filed on November 10, 2008, and granted by the Magistrate
Judge on December 1, 2008 (D.E. 45). Both motions were before the Magistrate Judge
pursuant to the Court’s Order of Reference (D.E. 33), issued on November 10, 2008.
Plaintiff did not take appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s January 27, 2009 Order,
instead moving for reconsideration. (See Motion for Reconsideration, D.E. 74, filed on
March 4, 2009.) Magistrate Judge Garber denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration on
January 4, 2010 and this appeal ensued.
Plaintiff’s main arguments in support of its appeal are: (1) the Magistrate Judge lacked
jurisdiction to hear and decide the Motion for Sanctions; (2) Defendants’ attorneys’ fee
request should have been denied for failure to comply with local rules and because it is
excessive; and in the alternative, (3) Defendants’ attorneys’ fees are grossly excessive and
should be reduced. (See generally Objections.)
As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Garber did indeed have
jurisdiction to decide Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. The Motion for Sanctions was
before the Magistrate Judge pursuant to an Order of Reference issued by this Court. The
parties’ declination of Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction (D.E. 65), filed on December 22,
2008, did not divest Magistrate Judge Garber of jurisdiction to hear all motions properly
before him pursuant to this Court’s earlier Order of Reference.
2
Nor did this Court’s Order Dismissing Case moot the pending Motion for Sanctions.1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 motions for sanctions are collateral to the original
proceeding and therefore may be considered after the action is no longer pending. Cooter
& Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990); Montgomery & Larmoyeux by
Montgomery v. Philip Morris, Inc., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1335 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (Gold, J.)
(district court may award attorney’s fees following remand in a separate order). The phrase
“all pending motions are DENIED as moot,” as written in the Court’s form Order of
Dismissal, is merely a scrivener’s error that should not preclude Defendants from continuing
to exercise their prerogative to move for sanctions.
Moving next to a review of the Magistrate Judge’s January 4, 2010 Order, the Court
does not find it to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); S.D. FLA. L.R., Local Magistrate Rule 4(a)(1). An order is clearly
erroneous if “the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in the entirety, is left with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Krys v. Lufthansa German
Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515, 1523 (11th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). Here, reconsideration
would only be justified on three major grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
1
The entire text of the paperless order (D.E. 70) states:
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal ("Notice," D.E. 69), filed on December 31, 2008. Having reviewed
the Notice and the record, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: (1) this case is
DISMISSED without prejudice; (2) this case is CLOSED; and (3) all pending motions
are DENIED as moot. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety.
Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 1/5/2009. (lc2) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
3
(2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice. Ass’n for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 211 F.R.D. 457, 477 (S.D.
Fla. 2002) (Gold, J.). The Magistrate Judge found that none of these grounds were present
so as to justify the reconsideration of his earlier order. (See Order Denying Reconsideration
at 2.)
Upon review of this Order, the Objections, the Response and the record, the Court
finds that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Similarly, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s twenty-five percent (25%) reduction
of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees was made upon careful review of the record and consistent
with the law of this Circuit. Thus, the Magistrate Judge’s January 4, 2010 Order must be
affirmed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.
Plaintiff Flushing Group, LLC’s Objections to Magistrate’s Order Imposing
Sanctions (D.E. 83), filed January 14, 2010, are DENIED.
2.
The Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the
Order Imposing Sanctions and in the Alternative, Plaintiff’s Response
Opposing Defendants’ Fee Request (D.E. 82), issued by Magistrate Judge
Barry L. Garber on January 4, 2010, is AFFIRMED in its entirety.
4
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 25th day of April, 2011.
_________________________________
JOAN A. LENARD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of March,
2011.
_________________________________
JOAN A. LENARD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?