Steffen v. Senterfitt

Full title: TERRI L. STEFFEN, Plaintiff, v. AKERMAN SENTERFITT, a Florida professional…

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

Date published: Aug 25, 2006

Case No. 8:04-cv-1693-T-24 MSS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 8:04-cv-1693-T-24 MSS.

August 25, 2006

ORDER

SUSAN BUCKLEW, District Judge

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendants' Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. No. 121). As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants improperly filed an amended motion for attorneys' fees without first seeking leave of the Court. Specifically, Defendants simply state that "in light of several recent events" they are amending their original motion for attorneys' fees. These events include the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming this Court's Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants¹ and the issuance of recent case law relevant to their entitlement to attorneys' fees. However, Defendants' counsel represents that he "has spoken with Plaintiff's counsel, and [Plaintiff's counsel] agrees that the Court should be briefed on Judge Antoon's recent decisions."

1 Defendants indicate that they intend to seek an award of appellate attorneys' fees and fees incurred relating to the ligation of entitlement to attorneys' fees.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

(1) The Court will accept for filing Defendants' Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. No. 121);

(2) Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees (Doc. No. 104) is DENIED AS MOOT;

(3) Plaintiff's Request for Oral Argument On Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. No. 116) is DENIED AS MOOT;

(4) Defendants' Motion for Leave to Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees (Doc. No. 118) is DENIED AS MOOT;

(5) Plaintiff shall file her response to Defendants' Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. No. 121) on or before September 8, 2006.