Order Denying Request to Defer Ruling

ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR., District Judge.

Within its response to Defendant Grant Thornton, LLP's motion to tax costs, Plaintiff Soneet R. Kapila, Liquidating Trustee of the SMF Energy Liquidating Trust, asks the Court to defer consideration of the issue until the conclusion of the appeal in this matter. (ECF No. 55.) Grant Thornton filed an expedited response (ECF No. 57) to which the Trustee did not reply. Having considered the submissions, the record and the applicable law, the Court denies the Trustee's request.

The Trustee urges the Court to defer ruling on the pending motion for costs until after the resolution of the appeal in this case. He characterizes his request as arising under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, presumably relying upon an advisory committee note, which states that "[i]f an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, directing . . . a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1993 Amendment. He therefore asks the Court to exercise its discretion to defer ruling on the motion until the resolution of the pending appeal. Grant Thornton, on the other hand, characterize the Trustee's request as asking for an unsecured stay and mere gamesmanship.

The Court's "regular practice is not to stay matters collateral to a final judgment, principally involving fees or costs issues, to avoid piecemeal appeals to the Eleventh Circuit." TYR Tactical, LLC v. Protective Prods. Enters., LLC, No. 15-cv-61741, 2016 WL 10647252, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2016) (Bloom, J.) (quoting King Cole Condo. Ass'n v. QBE Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 3212091, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2010) (Torres, Mag. J.) (internal quotations and alterations omitted)).

Upon review of the Trustee's motion, the Court will not defer ruling upon the pending motion for costs. First, while the Trustee maintains that a ruling upon costs at this juncture could be undone should he prevail on appeal, the same could be argued in virtually every case, and the Local Rules expressly provide that "[t]he prospects or pendency of supplemental review or appellate proceedings shall not toll or otherwise extend the time for filing a bill of costs with the Court," and that such motions should be filed "regardless of the prospect or pendency of supplemental review or appellate proceedings." S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(a)(1),(c). Second, the Trustee did not oppose Grant Thornton's February 22, 2018 request for additional time to file its motion for costs. The Trustee raises the issue now for the first time, many weeks later.

Accordingly, the Court denies the Trustee's request to defer ruling. As a result, Grant Thornton shall file its reply to the Trustee's response seven days from the date of this order.

Done and ordered.