Summary
reviewing the time records '"only for clearly excessive or noncompensable work" due to the "lack of specific objections" offered by the fee opponent
Summary of this case from Sure Fill & Seal, Inc. v. GFF, Inc.Opinion
Case No. 6:07-cv-1064-Orl-31KRS.
June 16, 2009
ORDER
On May 26, 2009, Magistrate Judge Spaulding entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42), recommending that Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 36) be GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report (Doc. 44). Upon de novo review of the above, the Court concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, but on a different basis. By the plain language of the Offer of Judgment, the Defendants proposed "to allow Plaintiff to obtain a judgment in the total amount of $1,000.00 plus all costs accrued." (Doc. 27-2 at 1) (emphasis added). The most logical interpretation of that passage is that it includes only those costs incurred as of the date of the offer of judgment. The alternative interpretation advanced by the Plaintiff reads the word "accrued" out of the text.
The offer included attorneys' fees within the category of recoverable costs. (Doc. 27-2 at 1).
Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred after the date of the offer. The Court will therefore deduct 3.3 hours for time Attorney Pantas worked and 0.3 hours for time Attorney Mauras worked after Defendants served the offer, as recommended by the Magistrate Judge. The Court concurs with the other recommendations of the Magistrate Judge regarding deductions for time that was either excessive or spent on non-compensable work. It is, therefore
ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is Adopted and Confirmed, as modified above;
2. The Motion for Attorneys' Fees is GRANTED IN PART. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.