Lewis v. Miller et al
Filing
66
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 53 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Phyllis Lewis. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 7/21/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
PHYLLIS LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PAUL MILLER, d/b/a GREENHILLS
SENIOR HEALTH CENTER,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 3:14-0897
JUDGE TRAUGER/KNOWLES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon the pro se Plaintiff’s “Motion for Attorney’s Fees
and Costs.” Docket No. 53. The body of the Motion states in full as follows:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and Local
Rule 54.01(b) Plaintiff moves to be granted attorney’s fees, court
costs and administrative costs.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Plaintiff prior to filing suit in Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee hired attorney,
Nanette Gould to collect monies owed from the
Defendant, Paul Miller.
Attorney Gould made several attempts to collect via
phone and certified mail. Defendant refused to
make any contact with her.
Attorney Gould also advised the Plaintiff as to her
rights and which court suit should be brought.
Attorney Gould presented her fees to Plaintiff if she
were to represent her. Plaintiff hen made the
decision to file suit ProSe.
Plaintiff pad Attorney Gould the sum of $900.00 US
dollars for her services.
Plaintiff paid court costs in the sum of $400.00 US
7.
8.
9.
dollars.
Plaintiff incurred mailing fees of $39.68 in mailing
costs of documents.
Plaintiff was charged $50.00 for process server
which there is not a receipt.
Total: $1339.68, all but one receipt is attached.
Plaintiff has not filed a Memorandum of Law with the Motion as required by Local Rule
7.01(a).
Plaintiff offers no basis whatsoever for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. In fact, it is
unclear whether Plaintiff seeks to recover those fees and costs from Defendant Paul Miller or
from Ms. Gould.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2), which Plaintiff cites, provides:
(2) Attorney’s Fees.
(A) Claim to Be made by Motion. A claim for attorney’s fees
and related nontaxable expenses must be made by motion unless
the substantive law requires those fees to be proved at trial as an
element of damages.
(B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless the statute or
court order provides otherwise, the motion must:
(i) be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of
judgment;
(ii) specify the judgment in the statute, rule, or other
grounds entitling the movant to the award;
(iii) state the amount sought or provide a fair
estimate of it; and
(iv) disclose, if the court so orders, the terms of any
agreement about fees for the services for which the
claim is made.
A default judgment was entered in this action against the only remaining Defendant, Paul
2
Miller, on December 9, 2014. Docket No. 46. The instant Motion was filed January 20, 2015. It
is, therefore, untimely.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not specified the grounds entitling her to the award.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motion (Docket No. 53) should be DENIED.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days after
service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any
response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985),
reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?