The opinion
United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Osmany Valdivia Ofarrill, Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Civil Action No. 18-22812-Civ-Scola
MMDO Corp d/b/a Montes de Oca )
Original Pizza Cubana (Estilo )
Varadero) and Manuel Montes de )
Oca, Jr., Defendants. )
Order Denying Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Before the Court is Mr. Ruben Saenz’s fourth attempt at obtaining an
award of attorney’s fees. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 57.) Having reviewed the motion,
the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court denies the motion
(ECF No. 57).
The motion purports to be filed pursuant to Local Rule 7.3, but it violates
Local Rule 7.3. That rule requires that a motion for attorneys’ fees “be filed and
served within sixty (60) days of the entry of the final judgment or order giving
rise to the claim” for fees. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(a)(1). The final judgment in this
case was entered on February 24, 2020. (ECF No. 53.) The instant motion for
attorneys’ fees was filed more than 60 days later, on June 3, 2020. (ECF No.
57.) Defendant’s failure to present any argument for why it waited so long to
file a motion for costs is “plainly insufficient for the Court’s purposes,” because
these deadlines operate as bright-line cutoff points, similar to statutes of
limitation. Hodge v. McNeil, 2012 WL 663180, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2012)
(Brown, Mag. J.) (citation omitted); see also Staats v. Universal Marine Ctr., Inc.,
2017 WL 6539512, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2017) (Bloom, J.) (“The comments
to Local Rule 7.3 also indicate that the deadlines for fees and costs motions are
intended to act as bright-line cutoff points, similar in nature to statutes of
limitation.”) (citing Comments Section, L.R. 7.3 (1999) (“[I]n no event may a
motion for fees or costs be made later than the date provided for in this rule”).
In addition to omitting any explanation for the untimeliness of the
motion, counsel also omitted that this Court has already denied his motions for
fees three times. The history of Mr. Saenz’s repeated attempts to obtain an
award of attorneys’ fees in an untimely or invalid manner is set forth in the
Court’s April 30, 2020 Order denying his third attempt to obtain fees. To the
extent counsel is actually seeking reconsideration, the motion only adds
evidence of fees that predates the prior orders and is thus not at all new or
otherwise deserving of reconsideration. Counselis admonished and hereby on
notice that the Court will impose appropriate sanctions should he file a fifth
successive and unmeritorious motion to obtain attorneys’ fees.
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion (ECF No. 57). The Court
directs the Clerk to mail copies of this order to the Defendants at the
addresses listed below.
Done and ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on July 15, 2020.
f= N. Aff
United States District Judge
Copy to:
MANUEL MONTES DE OCA, JR.
506 S.W. 98 Ct.
Miami, FL 33174
MMDO CORP D/B/A MONTES DE OCA ORIGINAL PIZZA CUBANA (ESTILO
VARADERO)
506 S.W. 98 Ct.
Miami, FL 33174