MIDAMERICA C2L INCORPORATED
v.
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the motion to tax costs without prejudice because it failed to comply with local rules and an appeal was pending.
Defendant Siemens Energy, Inc. filed an unopposed motion to tax costs against plaintiffs Midamerica C2L Incorporated and Secure Energy, Inc. The motio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Piecemeal Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Upon review, the above-styled motion fails to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 1.08 and 3.01(a). In addition, an appeal of this matter is now pending. See Doc. No. 342. Accordingly, despite the fact that the present motion is unopposed, the Court finds it appropriate to defer the issue of costs pending the outcome of the appeal. See, e.g., Hayas v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:13-cv-1432-T- 33AEP, 2015 WL 51700, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2015) (“If this Court were to resolve [the issue of costs] while an appeal remains pending, it would engage in the piecemeal adjudication of costs as the Court would be asked to repeat the procedure following the appeal."); see also Doe v. Magical Cruise Co., Ltd., No. 6:21-cv-1566-RBD- RMN, 2024 WL 310708, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 309973 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2024) (“In short, postponing Defendant's request to tax costs until after the pending appeal is resolved conserves judicial resources.").
For these reasons, the above-styled motion (Doc. No. 341) is DENIED without prejudice. Siemens Energy, Inc. may renew the request, as appropriate, within twenty-one (21) days after issuance of the mandate by the Eleventh Circuit.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 21, 2024.
Uslis Hefan Price LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc., 2015 WL 51700 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…e Doc. No. 342. Accordingly, despite the fact that the present motion is unopposed, the Court finds it appropriate to defer the issue of costs pending the outcome of the appeal. See, e.g., Hayas v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:13-cv-1432-T- 33AEP, 2015 WL 51700, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2015) (“If this Court were to resolve [the issue of costs] while an appeal remains pending, it would engage in the piecemeal adjudication of costs as the Court would be asked to repeat the procedure following t…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc., 2015 WL 51700 (M.D. Fla. 2024)