SAYRE v. CUSTOMERS BANK

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO FRCP 54(D)(2)(#87) IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES PURUSANT TO FRCP 54(D)(2)(#89) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE AMENDED MOTION (#89) IS GRANTED AND PLAINTIFF IS AWARDED ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,699.22. THE AMENDED MOTION (#89) IS DENIED AS TO ANY AMOUNT REQUESTED FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES ABOVE THE AWARD OF $25,699.22. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 8/23/17. 8/23/17 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT D. SAYRE, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3740 v. CUSTOMERS BANK, Defendant. ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of August 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) (Doc. No. 87), Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) (Doc. No. 89), and Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) (Doc. No. 93), and for the reasons stated in the Opinion issued this day, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) (Doc. No. 87) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. 2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) (Doc. No. 89) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Amended Motion (Doc. No. 89) is GRANTED and Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $25,699.22. The Amended Motion (Doc. No. 89) is DENIED as to any amount requested for attorney’s fees above the award of $25,699.22. 3. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes. BY THE COURT: / s/ J oel H. S l om sk y JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J. .

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?