Filed: Aug. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Amended Motion for Relief from Court's Order Dated August 4, 2014 (Doc. 86), filed August 5, 2014. The Court entered an Order sua sponte denying attorney's fees for Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with the Court's previous Order setting a motion deadline of July 28, 2014. (Doc. 84.) Plaintiff immediately filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 86.) Plaintiff's counsel
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Amended Motion for Relief from Court's Order Dated August 4, 2014 (Doc. 86), filed August 5, 2014. The Court entered an Order sua sponte denying attorney's fees for Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with the Court's previous Order setting a motion deadline of July 28, 2014. (Doc. 84.) Plaintiff immediately filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 86.) Plaintiff's counsel a..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Amended Motion for Relief from Court's Order Dated August 4, 2014 (Doc. 86), filed August 5, 2014.
The Court entered an Order sua sponte denying attorney's fees for Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with the Court's previous Order setting a motion deadline of July 28, 2014. (Doc. 84.) Plaintiff immediately filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 86.)
Plaintiff's counsel acknowledges her failure to comply with the Court's Order and, "[w]ith great humility," asks the Court to relieve Plaintiff of the consequences of counsel's "inadvertent error" and "excusable neglect." (Id. at 1.) In the Court's experience, virtually all error is inadvertent—whether neglect is excusable is more often in the eye of the beholder. Lack of attention to detail in reading Court Orders is inexcusable absent some circumstance sufficient to justify the careless conduct; this is the essence of the Pioneer factors. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 385, 394-95 (1993).
An attorney who thoroughly read the Court's Order simply could not think that the July 28 deadline only applied to the depositing of the fund.1 However, there have been no prior instances in this litigation in which Plaintiff's counsel has failed to comply with the Court's Orders or has delayed the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court accepts counsel's representation that the error was merely careless and finds in its discretion that the motion is due to be granted. See Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 850 (11th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Amended Motion for Relief from Court's Order Dated August 4, 2014 (Doc. 86) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Motion for Relief from Court's Order Dated August 4, 2014 (Doc. 85) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. On or before Friday, August 8, 2014, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a verified motion for fees and costs with supporting time sheets, rates, and authorities. That motion will be referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on entitlement and amount.
4. Counsel for all parties are DIRECTED to immediately meet and confer, in person, to attempt to resolve their differences with regard to the proposed judgment that was submitted to the Chambers email. On or before Wednesday, August 13, 2014, the parties are DIRECTED to submit a revised joint proposed judgment to the Chambers email. Should the parties be unable to agree, the Court will enter an appropriate judgment without any further input from counsel.
