ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED VERIFIED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

JONATHAN GOODMAN, Magistrate Judge.

United States District Court Judge Jose E. Martinez referred [ECF No. 24] to the Undersigned Plaintiff's Renewed Verified Motion for Attorney's Fees [ECF No. 22]. Defendant filed a response in opposition. [ECF No. 25]. No reply in support was filed by Plaintiff and the time to do so has since passed. For the reasons outlined below, the Undersigned denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff accepted Defendants' Offer of Judgment in the amount of $2,400, exclusive of attorney's fees and costs. [ECF No. 9]. The parties filed a joint motion to approve their settlement. [ECF No. 14]. The District Court approved the parties' settlement and retained jurisdiction to enforce the parties' settlement and to resolve any fees and cost issues. [ECF No. 15].

Plaintiff filed a fees and costs motion seeking $2,832.50 in attorney's fees and $557.30 in costs. [ECF No. 16]. Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs. [ECF No. 18]. The Undersigned granted Defendants' motion to strike for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the service requirements of Local Rule 7.3(b). [ECF No. 21]. The Undersigned allowed Plaintiff to file a compliant fees motion. [Id. at p. 4]. Plaintiff no longer seeks costs as the amount was agreed to and paid. [ECF No. 25, p. 1]. Plaintiff filed the instant Renewed Verified Motion for Attorney's Fees [ECF No. 22], and Defendants filed a Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition. [ECF No. 25].

Defendants contend that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees again fails to comply with the local rules. [ECF No. 25, p. 2]. Specifically, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's motion does not "disclose the terms of any applicable fee agreement," in violation of Local Rule 7.3(a)(4). [Id.].

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 7.3(a)(4) states that a motion for attorney's fees shall "disclose the terms of any applicable fee agreement." As one court in this district has noted, Local Rule 7.3's requirements are not optional, but mandatory. Norych v. Admiral Ins. Co., No. 08-60330-Civ-Altonaga, 2010 WL 2557502, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jun. 23, 2010). A party's failure to comply with Local Rule 7.3 is a sufficient basis to deny its fees and costs motion. Id. (denying motion because movant admitted that it did not comply with Local Rule 7.3(b)'s 30-day service requirement or 21-day conferral requirement) (citing Provide Commerce, Inc. v. Preferred Commerce, Inc., No. 07-80185-Civ-Ryskamp, 2008 WL 360591, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2008)).

III. DISCUSSION

The Undersigned finds that Plaintiff violated the local rule governing motions for attorney's fees. Plaintiff's motion does not disclose any applicable fee agreement between him and his attorney. [ECF No. 22]. As such, Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 7.3 provides a sufficient basis to deny its fees motion. See Norych, 2010 WL 2557502, at *2.

Accordingly, the Undersigned denies without prejudice Plaintiff's fees motion. The Undersigned will allow Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for attorney's fees that complies with Local Rule 7.3, however, Plaintiff may not seek any fees and costs associated with the renewed motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. Plaintiff's Renewed Verified Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs [ECF No. 22] is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for attorney's fees in compliance with Local Rule 7.3. If Plaintiff chooses to file such a motion, then Plaintiff may not seek any fees and costs associated with the renewed motion.

3. Plaintiff must file the renewed motion by July 13, 2015.

DONE AND ORDERED.