FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. LOMA INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS GROUP INC., MJG-11-1483. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20120208945
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: COMPENSATION MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge. The Court has before it the Monitor's Request for Compensation [Document 98] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. The Monitor's Request at issue was filed December 31, 2011 so that any objection was due January 20, 2012. The objection was filed on January 23, 2012, which was one business day late. The Court is not disregarding the one day late objection for lack of t
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: COMPENSATION MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge. The Court has before it the Monitor's Request for Compensation [Document 98] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. The Monitor's Request at issue was filed December 31, 2011 so that any objection was due January 20, 2012. The objection was filed on January 23, 2012, which was one business day late. The Court is not disregarding the one day late objection for lack of ti..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: COMPENSATION
MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it the Monitor's Request for Compensation [Document 98] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.
The Monitor's Request at issue was filed December 31, 2011 so that any objection was due January 20, 2012. The objection was filed on January 23, 2012, which was one business day late. The Court is not disregarding the one day late objection for lack of timeliness. However, the parties must be aware that once the time to object to action has passed, the Court may promptly act and grant the motion as unopposed.
The objection is based upon the Monitor's use of the word "overtime" to describe the services rendered by the office manager. The services were rendered in addition to her regular duties and could — as to her — be described as "overtime." However, the services were not, as understood by Defendants, law office overhead for which there should not have been, and was not, any charge. The services were for case specific purposes, were necessary, did not appear to require excessive hours, and were charged at a reasonable rate.
For the foregoing reasons:
1. The Monitor's Request for Compensation [Document 98] is GRANTED.
2. The Court shall issue the proposed Order submitted by the Monitor.
Source: Leagle
