ANDERSON v. STIEFEL ALUMINUM INC., 8:12-cv-1756-T-30MAP. (2013)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20130829834
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 28, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2013
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 37) and Defendants' Response in Opposition (Dkt. 39). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be denied. Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its Order awarding Plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $7,175.00 and costs in the amount of $535.55 (Dkt. 34). Plaintiff's
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 37) and Defendants' Response in Opposition (Dkt. 39). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be denied. Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its Order awarding Plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $7,175.00 and costs in the amount of $535.55 (Dkt. 34). Plaintiff's ..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 37) and Defendants' Response in Opposition (Dkt. 39). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be denied.
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its Order awarding Plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $7,175.00 and costs in the amount of $535.55 (Dkt. 34). Plaintiff's motion does not satisfy the standard for reconsideration. It essentially seeks a second bite of the apple. Simply put, the Court concluded that Plaintiff achieved minimal success in the litigation. The Court also concluded that, from the inception of this lawsuit, Plaintiff's counsel applied a legally unsupported valuation of Plaintiff's damages that needlessly increased the amount of attorney's fees Plaintiff incurred in this case. The Court reduced the lodestar amount accordingly. The arguments asserted in Plaintiff's reconsideration motion do not change the Court's ruling.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 37) is denied.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
