Opinion
Case No. 8:12-cv-942-T-33MAP
10-16-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the use and benefit of RAGGHIANTI FOUNDATIONS III, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PETER R. BROWN CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court in consideration of Defendant Peter R. Brown Construction, Inc.'s (PRBC) Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Non-Taxable Costs and Expenses of Suit (Doc. # 171) and Proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. # 173), both filed on October 15, 2014. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies PRBC's Motion and Proposed Bill of Costs without prejudice. PRBC may re-file the Motion and Proposed Bill of Costs upon resolution of the appeal, if appropriate. Discussion
After conducting a non-jury trial commencing on February 24, 2014, and concluding on March 4, 2014, this Court granted judgment in favor of PRBC and against Plaintiff Ragghianti Foundations III, LLC (Ragghianti). (See Doc. ## 169, 170). In accordance with the Court's September 19, 2014, Order (Doc. # 169 at 78), PRBC filed its Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Non-Taxable Costs and Expenses of Suit (Doc. # 171) and Proposed Bill of Costs on October 15, 2014 (Doc. # 173). Subsequently, on October 16, 2014, Ragghianti filed a Notice of Appeal, indicating its intent to appeal a plethora of this Court's Orders to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Doc. # 174).
As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction with respect to any matters involved in the appeal. Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that "[t]he filing of an appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance - it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal") (internal citations omitted).
Resolving PRBC's Motion and Proposed Bill of Costs while the present appeal remains pending would require the Court to engage in piecemeal adjudication of costs, as the Court would be asked to repeat the procedure following the appeal. See Bowers v. Universal City Dev. Partners, Ltd., No. 6:03-cv-985-ORL-18JGG, 2005 WL 1243745, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2005)("If the district court were to resolve the fee and cost issue while an appeal remains pending, it would be asked to repeat the procedure following the appeal. This Court prefers to avoid the piecemeal resolution of fee disputes."). Furthermore, the Court finds that the immediate resolution of the collateral issues raised in PRBC's Motion and Proposed Bill of Costs are unlikely to assist the Court of Appeals. Thus, the Court denies PRBC's Motion and Proposed Bill of Costs without prejudice. PRBC may re-file its Motion and Proposed Bill of Costs after resolution of the appeal, if appropriate.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant Peter R. Brown Construction, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Non-Taxable Costs and Expenses of Suit (Doc. # 171) and Proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. # 173) are DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 16th day of October, 2014.
/s/_________
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Counsel of Record