Hunters Run Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Centerline Real Estate, LLC

Filing 191

ORDER denying without prejudice 184 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying without prejudice 188 Motion for Bill of Costs. Plaintiff may renew these motions within 30 days of the issuance of the appellate mandate. See attached order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart on 5/26/2020. See attached document for full details. (BER)

Case 9:18-cv-80407-BER Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 18-80407-CIV-REINHART
HUNTERS RUN PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
v.
CENTERLINE REAL ESTATE, LLC,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
______________________________________________/
ORDER ON HUNTERS RUN’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND Bill
OF COSTS [ECF Nos. 184, 188]
Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Hunters Run Property Owners
Association, Inc.’s (“the Association”) Motion For Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 184]
and Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 188] (collectively, “the Motions”). I have
reviewed the Motions, Centerline’s Response to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees
[ECF No. 187], and the Association’s Reply [ECF No. 190]. I am familiar with the
entire record in the case. This matter is ripe for decision. The Motions are
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being renewed until resolution of Centerline’s
appeal.
After a bench trial, I entered final judgment for the Association in the
amount of $391,344.94, along with declaratory relief. ECF No. 183. I entered

1

Case 9:18-cv-80407-BER Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 2 of 3

final judgment against Centerline on its counterclaims. Id. Centerline timely
appealed from the final judgment. ECF No. 186. That appeal is pending.
Prior to receiving Centerline’s Response, and prior to the filing of the Notice
of Appeal and the Motion for Bill of Costs, I took the Motion for Attorney’s Fees
under advisement, stating that I would “defer consideration of any amount of
attorneys' fees, including briefing on the issue, until after it is determined that
there is an entitlement to fees.”

ECF No. 185.

In its Response, Centerline

implicitly concedes that (if the final judgment is affirmed), the Association is
entitled to some attorney’s fees.
As Magistrate Judge Goodman has explained:
During an appeal, the district court retains jurisdiction to rule on
issues collateral to the issues on appeal, including motions for
attorney’s fees and costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Under Rule
54(d)(2)(B), the district court may control the timing and contents of
a motion for attorney’s fees. Moreover, as explained by the Advisory
Committee Notes to Rule 54(d)(2): “If an appeal on the merits of the
case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its
ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice,
directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the
appeal has been resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, Advisory Committee
Notes (1993 Amendments).
Thus, the court has the discretion to defer ruling on a motion for
attorney’s fees and costs pending an appeal. See, e.g., Democratic
Republic of the Congo v. Air Capital Group, LLC, 12-20607-CIV, 2014
WL 12634405, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2014) (“Here, in light of the
pending appeal, the Court exercises its discretion to deny the instant
[fees and costs] motions without prejudice and allow the parties to
refile after the appeal has been resolved.”) (Rosenbaum, J.). Courts
have deferred ruling on fees and costs motions pending appeal in
the interests of judicial economy. See, e.g., Chavez v. Mercantil
Commercebank, N.A., 10-CV-23244, 2012 WL 12861093, at *3 (S.D.
Fla. Aug. 20, 2012) (denying fees and costs motions without
prejudice because, “by deferring ruling, the Court conserves judicial
resources”).
2

Case 9:18-cv-80407-BER Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 3 of 3

Permitting briefing and extensive motions for attorney’s fees and
costs here while the appeal is pending would start the extensive
process of adjudicating attorney’s fees and costs. There is nothing
in the record that shows good cause for the Undersigned and the
Court to decide the attorney’s fees and costs issue when the
entitlement and amount could change once the appeal is
decided. See id.
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 15-20941-CIV, 2018 WL
9708621, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2018) (J. Goodman); see also Heron Dev. Corp.
v. Vacation Tours, Inc., 16-20683-CIV, 2020 WL 409690, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24,
2020) (deferring ruling on attorney’s fee and costs until appellate mandate issus)
(Moreno, J.).
I find that the interests of justice, including the just, speedy, and
inexpensive resolution of this matter, are best served by waiting to resolve issues
of attorney’s fees and costs until after an appellate decision is issued. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 1.
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and the
Motion for Bill of Costs are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being renewed
within 30 days of the issuance of the Eleventh Circuit’s mandate.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 26th day of May, 2020, at West
Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida.

_____________________________
BRUCE REINHART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3