Solomon v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying without prejudice 46 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 11/15/2016. (bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JESSE SOLOMON

*
Plaintiff

*

vs.

*

THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL
PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN and THE
NFL PLAYER SUPPLEMENTAL
DISABILITY PLAN

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-14-3570

*
*
*

*

Defendants
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: COSTS, FEES
The Court has before it Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs [ECF No. 46] and the materials submitted relating
thereto.

The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.

On June 8,1 the Court entered Judgment for Plaintiff in the
principal amount of $393,490.50 with prejudgment interest of
$32,292.61, a total of $425,783.11 with Judgment interest
commencing July 1. Judgment Order [ECF No. 43, amended on June
20, ECF No. 47]. On June 21, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.
Plaintiff seeks fees totaling $225,312.75 and costs totaling
$3,098.24.
On June 22, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal [ECF No.
48].

The appeal is pending in the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
1

Whatever the Court may do in

All date references herein are to the year 2016.

regard to the instant motion, the "bottom line" result regarding
costs and fees will not be final until the conclusion of
appellate proceedings.

And the Court finds that Defendant

presented a defense that, while not accepted by the Court,
raised issues upon which reasonable jurists can differ.
An appellate decision for the defendant could negate an
award to plaintiff.

On the other hand, an appellate decision

for plaintiff would likely increase the amount to be awarded.
Moreover, it is possible that the parties may choose to settle
their entire dispute, including the amount of any award for fees
and costs before it is necessary for the Court to resolve the
current (and possible future) issues regarding any award.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds it most sound to
defer final decision on the instant motion pending the
completion of appellate proceedings.
However, it is appropriate for the Court to note that it is
inclined to award Plaintiff cost and fees, although in an amount
less than sought.

Among the issues of concern regarding the

amount of a fee award are the hourly rates sought and the
expenditure of professional time (by both sides) in regard to
Plaintiff's request for monthly compounding of pre-judgment
interest.

2

Accordingly:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
[ECF No. 46] is DENIED without prejudice as
premature.

2.

Plaintiff may renew and/or supplement the said
motion within 60 days of the final conclusion of the
pending appellate proceedings.

SO ORDERED, on Tuesday, November 15, 2016.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3