Stooksbury v. Ross et al

Filing 663

ORDER granting 652 First Application of Receiver for Interim Compensation and Expense Reimbursement. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 7/24/12. (ADA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ROBERT T. STOOKSBURY, JR., Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL L. ROSS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:09-CV-498 (VARLAN/GUYTON) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636, the Rules of this Court, and the referral order of the District Judge. Sterling Owen, IV, as Receiver in this case and pursuant to the Memorandum and Order entered June 6, 2012, has filed his First Application of Receive for Interim Compensation and Expense Reimbursement, [Doc. 652]. The Application represents that Mr. Owen retained the services of Bunnell & Woulfe, P.A., in order to protect and preserve assets located within the Southern District of Florida. The expenses incurred by the Receiver in retaining Bunnell & Woulfe, P.A., thus far, total $1,718.95. Mr. Owen has personally performed 79.5 hours of work on this matter as of June 30, 2012. These hours are to be compensated at a rate of $175.00 pursuant to the Memorandum and Order entered June 6, 2012. Thus, Mr. Owen requests $13,912.50 in compensation for the time he has expended. Mr. Owen also requests $258.64 in expenses. The Application includes detailed invoices in support of the requested compensation. [Docs. 652-1, 652-2]. In total, Mr. Owen, as Receiver, requests interim compensation at this time totaling $15,890.09, for the services described above. The Court finds that this request is well-taken, and therefore, the First Application of Receiver for Interim Compensation and Expense Reimbursement [Doc. 652] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER: s/ H. Bruce Guyton United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?