CATES
v.
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC.
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW (Doc. No. 150) FILED: February 25, 2022
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice. This case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See Doc. Nos. 140–42. Because determination of the appeal, regardless of its outcome, may affect consideration of the issue of attorney’s fees, the undersigned finds it appropriate to await the outcome of the appeal before resolving the above-styled motion. See Morrison v. Amway Corp., No. 6:01-cv-0749- Orl-22JGG, 2003 WL 25570793, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2003) (“[T]he Court has discretion to deny a motion for attorney’s fees without prejudice to refile after the appeal has concluded.”). See also, e.g., E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC, No. 2:21- cv-450-SPC-NPM, 2022 WL 19914347, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2022) (exercising discretion to defer resolution of attorney’s fees until after resolution of appeal); Action Nissan, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am. & Genesis Motor Am., No. 6:18-cv-380- WWEB-EJK, 2022 WL 17409415, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2022) (same); Yellowpages Photos, Inc. v. YP, LLC, No. 8:17-cv-764-T-36JSS, 2020 WL 6729719, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 6728846 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2020) (same); Truesdell v. Thomas, No. 5:13-cv-552-Oc-10PRL, 2016 WL 7049252, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2016) (same). Accordingly, Defendant’s Supplemental Motion on Amount of Fees (Doc. No. 150) is DENIED without prejudice to filing a renewed motion, if appropriate, within twenty-one days after issuance of the mandate by the Eleventh Circuit. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 22, 2023.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cates v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., 2003 WL 25570793 (M.D. Fla. 2023)…s outcome, may affect consideration of the issue of attorney’s fees, the undersigned finds it appropriate to await the outcome of the appeal before resolving the above-styled motion. See Morrison v. Amway Corp., No. 6:01-cv-0749- Orl-22JGG, 2003 WL 25570793, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2003) (“[T]he Court has discretion to deny a motion for attorney’s fees without prejudice to refile after the appeal has concluded.”). See also, e.g., E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC, No. 2:21- cv-450-SPC-NPM, 20…1 / 4
-
Q1, LLC v. MPR Assembly & Logistic Servs., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024)…l may affect consideration of the issue of attorney's fees. The undersigned therefore finds it appropriate to await the outcome of the appeals before resolving the above-styled renewed motion. See Morrison v. Amway Corp., No. 6:01-cv-0749-Orl-22JGG, 2003 WL 25570793, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2003) ("[T]he Court has discretion to deny a motion for attorney's fees without prejudice to refile after the appeal has concluded."); see also, e.g., E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, ¹ MPR and DSV timely-filed cross-motions…1 / 4
-
DM Mgmt. Transp. Servs., Inc. v. US Mattress Depot (M.D. Fla. 2024)…risdiction exists) may affect consideration of the issue of attorneys' fees, the undersigned finds it appropriate to await the outcome of these issues before resolving the above-styled motion. Cf. Morrison v. Amway Corp., No. 6:01-cv-0749-Orl-22JGG, 2003 WL 25570793, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2003) ("[T]he Court has discretion to deny a motion for attorney's fees without prejudice to refile after the appeal has concluded."); see also E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC, No. 2:21- cv-450-SPC-NPM, 2022 WL 19914347,…1 / 4
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cates v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., 2003 WL 25570793 (M.D. Fla. 2023)