ORDER

JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Dkt. 28) and Defendant's Motion to Stay Administration of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Dkt. 32). The Court, upon review of the motions, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that a stay is appropriate pending Defendant's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant's motion.

On January 27, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Defendant's sign ordinance that prohibited the display of non-commercial and commercial outdoor signs without a permit, but exempted more than 17 categories of signs, was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment (Dkt. 26). Final judgment was entered in Plaintiff's favor that same day (Dkt. 27).

On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking prevailing party attorneys' fees and taxable costs (Dkt. 28). On February 17, 2017, Defendant filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. 30). On February 24, 2017, Defendant also filed a motion to stay any ruling with respect to Plaintiff's entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs (Dkt. 32).

The Court concludes that a stay is appropriate under the circumstances. Even thought the Court's decision was based on the recent United States Supreme Court opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 135 S.Ct. 2218, 2226 (2015) and the Eleventh Circuit opinion in Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (2005) (applying the same test articulated in Reed to a city sign code), the Court concludes that a stay is the most efficient approach until the pending appeal is concluded.

It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

DONE and ORDERED.