# Pletkus

> District Court, M.D. Florida · August 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11423938

## Case

- **Full name:** Sarunas Pletkus, acting on behalf of minor child, E.P. v. Ana Saletis
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** August 14, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11423938

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

SARUNAS PLETKUS, acting on
behalf of minor child, E.P.,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 2:26-cv-1209-SPC-NPM

ANA SALETIS,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Sarunas Pletkus’ Motion for
Determination of Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (Doc. 54).
Respondent Ana Saletis has not yet responded, but Petitioner states she
opposes the motion. (Id. at 7). For the following reasons, the motion is
denied without prejudice.
“As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court
of jurisdiction on any matter involved in the appeal.” Elver v. Whidden, No.
2:18-cv-102-FtM-29CM, 2019 WL 718536, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2019);
Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292, 1309
(11th Cir. 2003). But district courts may retain power to consider issues
collateral to those on appeal, like attorney’s fees and costs. Briggs v. Briggs,
260 F. App’x 164, 165 (11th Cir. 2007); Rothenberg v. Sec. Mgmt. Co., 677 F.2d
64, 65 (11th Cir. 1982). So this jurisdictional limit does not prohibit seeking
fees before an appeal concludes.

That said, courts have broad discretion to defer or deny a motion for
attorney’s fees without prejudice with leave to refile after the appeal. See,
e.g., The Indigo Room, Inc. v. City of Fort Myers, No. 2:12-CV-39-FTM-38CM,
2014 WL 1174355, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2014). As the Advisory

Committee explained:
If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court
may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the
motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice,
directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing
after the appeal has been resolved.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendment.
Exercising that discretion, judges routinely deny without prejudice or
defer rulings on fees. E.g., Magma Glob., LLC v. NHT SP, LLC, No. 8:23-cv-
2076-SDM-AEP, 2024 WL 5480052, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2024); Pinto v.
Rambosk, No. 2:19-cv-551-JLB-MRM, 2021 WL 4263404, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept.
20, 2021). This decision often serves the twin aims of promoting judicial
economy and securing an efficient resolution of the action. See, e.g., Bowers
v. Universal City Dev. Partners, Ltd., No. 603CV985ORL18JGG, 2005 WL
1243745, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2005) (“If the district court were to resolve
the fee and cost issue while an appeal remains pending, it would be asked to
repeat the procedure following the appeal. This Court prefers to avoid the
piecemeal resolution of fee disputes.”); U.S. ex rel. Ragghianti Foundations III,
LLC v. Peter R. Brown Constr., Inc., No. 8:12-cv-942-T-33MAP, 2014 WL

5307490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2014); Yellowpages Photos, Inc. v. YP, LLC,
No. 8:17-cv-764-T-36JSS, 2020 WL 6729719, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2020).
The Court issued its order in Petitioner’s favor on August 7, 2026. (Doc.
42). Respondent appealed three days later. (Doc. 45). Petitioner moved for

fees three days after that. (Doc. 54). The Court finds that justice would be
better served by denying the motion without prejudice with leave to refile after
the appeal is decided. If necessary, Defendant may refile the motion within
twenty-one days after the appeal concludes (i.e., after the Eleventh Circuit

issues a mandate). See Byndom v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-1971-JA-
LHP, 2025 WL 1456595, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2025); Gimenez v. McLane
Foodservice, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-1102-GAP-RMN, 2024 WL 6881921, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 19, 2024); Action Nissan, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am., No. 6:18-cv-380-

WWB-EJK, 2022 WL 17409415, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2022) (Kidd, J.).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Petitioner Sarunas Pletkus’ Motion for Determination of

Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 54) is DENIED without
prejudice.
2. Petitioner may file a renewed motion (if appropriate) within
twenty-one days after the Eleventh Circuit issues a mandate on the pending
appeal.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 14, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11423938. Public record. Not legal advice.