From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris Corporation v. Dunn

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
May 5, 2006
Case No. 6:05-cv-1388-Orl-19DAB (M.D. Fla. May. 5, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 6:05-cv-1388-Orl-19DAB.

May 5, 2006


ORDER


This case is before the Court on the Motion for Interpleader, Attorney's Fees and Dismissal (Doc. No. 19) filed November 30, 2005. The United States Magistrate Judge has submitted a report recommending the abating of this action and directing the Plan Administrator to resolve the administrative appeal undertaken by Defendant Dunn consistent with its obligations under the Plan, the denial of the motion for interpleader as premature and the denial of the motion for attorney's fees.

After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, and considering the response flied, the Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation filed March 7, 2006 (Doc. No. 42) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.

2. This action is hereby abated and the Court directs the Plan Administrator to resolve the administrative appeal undertaken by Defendant Dunn consistent with its oblations under the Plan, and upon final resolution, any party may return to this Court upon proper motion and seek review of the decision, under the appropriate standard. The Motion for Interpleader is denied as premature. The Motion for Attorney's Fees is denied.

DONE and ORDERED.


Summaries of

Harris Corporation v. Dunn

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
May 5, 2006
Case No. 6:05-cv-1388-Orl-19DAB (M.D. Fla. May. 5, 2006)
Case details for

Harris Corporation v. Dunn

Case Details

Full title:HARRIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. JERRI L. DUNN, SHARON L. TAYLOR, THOMAS…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

Date published: May 5, 2006

Citations

Case No. 6:05-cv-1388-Orl-19DAB (M.D. Fla. May. 5, 2006)

Citing Cases

United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Mobley

Id. “Where a court does find an interpleader to be a disinterested, innocent stakeholder, any fee award…