Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ALLEN v. FREEMAN, CV 110-022. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20150721840 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . On July 6, 2015, the Court directed counsel for Plaintiffs to file a compliant Rule 17.1(b) petition upon its receipt of notice that Plaintiffs timely accepted Defendants' Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. (Doc. 95.) As the Court now finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and Local Rule 17.1(b) have been met, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Settlement (Doc. 99) and DIRECTS the Clerk to ENTER JUDGMENT against Defendant
More

ORDER

On July 6, 2015, the Court directed counsel for Plaintiffs to file a compliant Rule 17.1(b) petition upon its receipt of notice that Plaintiffs timely accepted Defendants' Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. (Doc. 95.) As the Court now finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and Local Rule 17.1(b) have been met, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Settlement (Doc. 99) and DIRECTS the Clerk to ENTER JUDGMENT against Defendants in the amount of $100,000.00. The Court will consider the substance of Plaintiffs' Rule 17.1 petition upon completion of the parties' briefing regarding attorney's fees and costs. At that point, the Court will enter" an order "approving or disapproving any agreement entered into by the guardian for payment of counsel fees and other expenses" or "fix[] counsel fees and ... expenses" as it deems proper. LR 17.1(c), SDGa. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:

1. No later than TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2015, Plaintiffs SHALL SUPPLEMENT their Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses (Doc. 100) to address the reasonableness of the fees and costs sought by counsel — both Mr. John P. Batson and Mr. Stanley C. House — including the 40 percent contingency arrangement. 2. Defendants SHALL RESPOND to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses (Doc. 100), as well as Plaintiffs' supplementary filing, by WEDNESPAY, AUGUST 19, 2015, 3. Plaintiffs may submit a reply brief, if necessary, no later than THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2015,

As the parties have resolved this matter with the exception of costs and fees, Defendants' Motion in Limine is DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. 92.)

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