Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

REED v. SANDLIN, 2:15-cv-02448-STA-tmp. (2016)

Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20160907e58 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE REGARDING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES S. THOMAS ANDERSON , District Judge . On August 29, 2016, the Court considered the purported appeal of Sam Zerilla, attorney for Defendants James Kirkwood and Preston Morton, of the Magistrate Judge's decision on August 24, 2016, denying, inter alia, Plaintiff's motion for further sanctions. (ECF No. 175.) The Court noted that, although the appeal was linked to the August 24 decision (ECF No.
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE REGARDING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES

On August 29, 2016, the Court considered the purported appeal of Sam Zerilla, attorney for Defendants James Kirkwood and Preston Morton, of the Magistrate Judge's decision on August 24, 2016, denying, inter alia, Plaintiff's motion for further sanctions. (ECF No. 175.) The Court noted that, although the appeal was linked to the August 24 decision (ECF No. 173), it referenced the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 147) for sanctions against Zerilla in the amount of $1,295 payable to Plaintiff for his attorney's fees in connection with Plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause, to preclude evidence, and to reduce time to respond to the motion. (ECF No. 135.) The Magistrate Judge partially granted Plaintiff's motion on August 9, 2016, and awarded attorney's fees as a sanction. (ECF No. 143.) The subsequent report and recommendation (ECF No. 147) recommended the amount of the attorney's fees that should be paid to Plaintiff.

Because no appeal was taken from the order of August 9, the Court determined that the only issue that Zerilla could appeal was the amount of the attorney's fees awarded by Magistrate Judge Pham. Because of the confusion as to what exactly Zerilla was appealing, the Court denied Zerilla's appeal and request for a hearing without prejudice and allowed Zerilla to re-file his appeal no later than the close of business Friday, September 2, 2016. The Court noted that the failure to do so would result in the adoption of the report and recommendation without further notice.

Zerilla has not re-filed his appeal within the requisite time. Accordingly, the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham (ECF No. 147) is hereby ADOPTED in its entirely. Zerilla is ORDERED to pay to Plaintiff a total of $1,295 in fees and costs.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. This amount is in addition to the $1,330 that the Court previously ordered Zerilla to pay Plaintiff. (ECF No. 129.) A hearing is set for September 8, 2016, on Zerilla's motion to withdraw as counsel. (ECF No. 160.)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer