From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Securities, Ltd.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Jul 22, 2007
CASE NO. 6:02-CV-1354-ORL-19DAB (M.D. Fla. Jul. 22, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 6:02-CV-1354-ORL-19DAB.

July 22, 2007


ORDER


This case was considered by the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 505, filed June 20, 2007). No objection to said Report and Recommendation was filed. Upon consideration, it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 505) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. No. 482, filed April 25, 2007) is DENIED without prejudice to reassertion after completion of the appellate process. The Motion for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Opposition (Doc. No. 495, filed May 23, 2007) is DENIED without prejudice, as moot.

In view of the history and present posture of the case, and the large amount of fees sought, the Defendants shall secure a letter of credit (in lieu of a bond) in the amount of the total fee claim, plus 20% (a total of $4,977,160.56) pending conclusion of the appellate process. See Doc. No. 496. A copy of such letter of credit shall be provided to counsel for Plaintiff and shall be filed with this Court within eleven (11) days from this date.

DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida.


Summaries of

800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Securities, Ltd.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Jul 22, 2007
CASE NO. 6:02-CV-1354-ORL-19DAB (M.D. Fla. Jul. 22, 2007)
Case details for

800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Securities, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:800 ADEPT, INC., Plaintiff, v. MUREX SECURITIES, LTD., MUREX LICENSING…

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

Date published: Jul 22, 2007

Citations

CASE NO. 6:02-CV-1354-ORL-19DAB (M.D. Fla. Jul. 22, 2007)

Citing Cases

Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Ret. Plan

However, “before a court ... permits extensive discovery of suspected violations of its judgment, there…

Hite v. Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc.

See Ford v. Haley, 195 F.3d 603, 617 (11th Cir. 1999). A finding is contrary to law if it fails to apply or…