AUSTIN v. FL HUD ROSEWOOD LLC

AUSTIN v. FL HUD ROSEWOOD LLC

Plaintiff:	HENRIETTA AUSTIN
Defendant:	FL HUD ROSEWOOD LLC
Case Number:	3:2015cv00040
Filed:	February 10, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office:	Pensacola Office
County:	Escambia
Presiding Judge:	M CASEY RODGERS
Presiding Judge:	CHARLES J KAHN
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 25, 2021	Filing 179 ORDER adopting in part 176 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 163 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff's objections to double-counting of exclusions in the R&R for (1) time related to two cler ical and vague entries ($90) and (2) for the amount deducted as unreasonable based on Plaintiffs fee expert, Mr. Van Sickle ($886.50) are SUSTAINED; the objection to time entries excluded after the first trial as beyond the Magistrate Judge 's authority is OVERRULED; and the R&R will be modified to account for errors noted in the chart of deducted entries (in the amounts of $285, $57, and $492), which will be added to the award. Plaintiff is awarded $76,105.504 in attorney's fees plus $2,067.65 as costs, for a total of $78,173.15. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 3/25/2021. (jcw)
May 10, 2017	Filing 72 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion in Limine. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 05/10/2017. (Jacobs, Tevenia)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 25, 2021

Filing 179 ORDER adopting in part 176 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 163 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff's objections to double-counting of exclusions in the R&R for (1) time related to two cler ical and vague entries ($90) and (2) for the amount deducted as unreasonable based on Plaintiffs fee expert, Mr. Van Sickle ($886.50) are SUSTAINED; the objection to time entries excluded after the first trial as beyond the Magistrate Judge 's authority is OVERRULED; and the R&R will be modified to account for errors noted in the chart of deducted entries (in the amounts of $285, $57, and $492), which will be added to the award. Plaintiff is awarded $76,105.504 in attorney's fees plus $2,067.65 as costs, for a total of $78,173.15. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 3/25/2021. (jcw)

May 10, 2017

Filing 72 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion in Limine. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 05/10/2017. (Jacobs, Tevenia)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Florida Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: AUSTIN v. FL HUD ROSEWOOD LLC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: HENRIETTA AUSTIN
Represented By:	RICHARD DEAN BARLOW
Represented By:	BRADLEY SYFRETT ODOM
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: FL HUD ROSEWOOD LLC
Represented By:	JEREMY CHASE BRANNING
Represented By:	DANIEL EUGENE HARRELL
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?