Circuitronix, LLC v. Shenzen Kinwong Electronic Co., Ltd. ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 17-cv-22462-UU CIRCUITRONIX, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SHENZHEN KINWONG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Motion”). D.E. 376. Chief United States Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) on August 13, 2020, recommending that the Court deny the Motion. D.E. 384. Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the R&R. D.E. 386. The Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On June 6, 2019, a final judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1,006,832. D.E. 292. Thereafter, Plaintiff sought to recover attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party, and on March 17, 2020, the Court entered an order awarding Plaintiff $1,040,249.50 in total fees. D.E. 360. That order is pending appeal before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See D.E. 364; D.E. 372. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks to recover additional attorneys’ and costs in the amount of $119,701.73, which it “incurred for certain post-trial work, including litigation of the fee and cost motions.” D.E. 376. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan recommends that the Motion be denied, finding that “this Court does not have jurisdiction over the issue of the award of attorneys’ fees, because the jurisdiction over the issue of attorneys’ fees is with the Eleventh Circuit.” D.E. 384. In its objection, Plaintiff states that it “does not object to the R&R’s conclusion that the merits of the supplemental motion should not be addressed at this time in light of pending appeals of the Court’s prior order on attorneys’ fees and costs.” D.E. 386. Plaintiff, however, filed its objection “solely for the purpose of requesting that the Court modify the R&R to clarify either that the motion is denied without prejudice ... or that the Court is deferring ruling on the motion pending the resolution of the appeals.” Jd. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan’s finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to address the Motion. See, e.g., Tiara Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., No. 08-CV-80254, 2010 WL 5464180, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2020) (“Plaintiffs appeal of the initial attorneys’ fee award divests this Court of jurisdiction to consider a supplemental motion which involves common issues to those presently on appeal.”). As such, the Court will deny the Motion. Plaintiff may re-file its supplemental attorneys’ fee request once the appellate issues are resolved. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (D.E. 384) is ADOPTED, RATIFIED, AND AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's Motion (D.E. 376) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida, this 30th day of December, 2020. URSULA UNGARO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished: All counsel of record