SUPERIOR PROTECTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERTO MARTINEZ, APPELLEE
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.
Superior Protection, Inc. appealed a judgment awarding Alberto Martinez $318,853.03 in compensatory and punitive damages for gender discrimination and retaliatory conduct under federal employment law. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and addressed Martinez's request for appellate attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), clarifying the procedural requirements for obtaining such fees on appeal.
The court affirmed the judgment and held that: (1) an order granting attorneys' fees in the circuit court is not a condition precedent to obtaining appellate attorneys' fees; (2) the timeliness of appellate attorneys' fees motions is governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b), not circuit court Rule 1.525; (3) as the prevailing party, Martinez is entitled to appellate attorneys' fees under federal statute; (4) motions for appellate costs must be filed in the lower tribunal within 30 days after issuance of the mandate, not in the appellate court.
[1] A motion for appellate attorneys' fees is governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b), requiring service no later than the time for service of the reply brie…
[2] An order granting attorneys' fees in the circuit court is not a condition precedent to obtaining an award of appellate attorneys' fees.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under these circumstances, an order granting attorneys' fees in the circuit court is not a condition precedent to obtaining an award of appellate attorneys' fees.”
Establishes that the untimely motion in the circuit court does not bar appellate attorneys' fees when the appellate motion itself is timely.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlberto Martinez obtained a judgment against Superior Protection, Inc. for gender discrimination and retaliatory conduct in the amount of $318,853.03 …
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 Gender Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Superior Protection, Inc., appeals a judgment awarding Alberto Martinez compensatory and punitive damages totaling $318,853.03 based upon claims of gender discrimination and retaliatory conduct. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), -3.
We affirm the judgment without further comment but write to explain our disposition of Mr. Martinez’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees and costs. Shortly after the judgment was entered, Mr. Martinez filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in the circuit court. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (“In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney’s fee (including expert fees) as part of the costs.... ”). It appears that the circuit court denied this motion because it was untimely pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. Mr. Martinez has not appealed the order denying his motion for attorneys’ fees.
However, he has filed a motion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) seeking the attorneys’ fees he has incurred in this appeal.
Superior Protection asserts that Mr. Martinez’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees should be denied because his motion for attorneys’ fees before the circuit court was untimely. We disagree.
Rule 1.525 is a procedural rule, applicable to civil proceedings in the circuit and county courts. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010. In appellate proceedings, the timeliness of a motion for attorneys’ fees is governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b), which requires that the motion “be served not later than the time for service of the reply brief.” Mr. Martinez’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees was timely. Under these circumstances, an order granting attorneys’ fees in the circuit court is not a condition precedent to obtaining an award of appellate attorneys’ fees. As the prevailing party in this appeal and in this lawsuit, Mr. Martinez is entitled to his attorneys’ fees on appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). We remand the motion to the circuit court to determine the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees Mr. Martinez incurred in this appeal.
Mr. Martinez also filed a motion for costs on appeal in conjunction with his motion for appellate attorneys’ fees. This is a common procedural error in this court. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400 discusses both costs and attorneys’ fees. A motion for attorneys’ fees is filed in the appellate court pursuant to rule 9.400(b). “Costs shall be taxed by the lower tribunal on motion served within 30 days after issuance of the mandate.” Fla. R.App. P. 9.400(a).
Thus, the motion for appellate costs cannot be filed in the district court but must be filed in the lower tribunal after jurisdiction has been returned to that body by our mandate. See Vella v. Vella, 691 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Accordingly, we strike the motion for costs on appeal without prejudice to Mr. Martinez’s right to file a timely motion pursuant to rule 9.400(a) in the circuit court.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. Ileana Collazo, 178 So. 3d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…filed in this Court, without prejudice to Collazo’s right to file a" timely motion pursuant to rule 9.400(a) in the circuit court, noting that' the time limit for filing pursuant to that rule is jurisdictional. See Superior Prot., Inc. v. Martinez, 930 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 2d DCÁ 2006). Collazo next requests. appellate attorney’s fees, citing Rule 9.400, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure as the basis for her right to such fees. Rule 9.400 governs the procedure to be followed with respect to appellate en…
-
Giddens v. Tlsty, 98 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ing the motion to tax appellate costs. Motions to tax “appellate costs cannot be filed in the district court but must be filed in the lower tribunal after jurisdiction has been returned to that body by our mandate.” Superior Prot., Inc. v. Martinez, 930 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). So long as the motion to tax appellate costs is timely, costs must be taxed in favor of the party who prevailed on the appeal. See Martin v. Hialeah Hous. Auth., 972 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Under Florida Rule…
-
Essenson v. Bloom, 251 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vella v. Vella, 691 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)