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,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2012) (Brown, Mag. J.) (citation omitted); see also Staats v. Universal Marine Ctr., Inc.,

, 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.

Ct. Miami, FL 33174 MMDO CORP D/B/A MONTES DE OCA ORIGINAL PIZZA CUBANA (ESTILO VARADERO)

Ct. Miami, FL 33174