Case 1:12-cv-24356-JG Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2016 Page 1 of 3

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDA
MIAMIDIVISION

CASENO.1224356CIVGOODMAN

[CONSENTCASE]
PROCAPSS.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATHEONINC.,

Defendant.
_______________________________/

ORDERONPROCAPSMOTION
TOSTAYPATHEONSMOTION
FORATTORNEYSFEESANDNONTAXABLECOSTS

The Undersigned grants in part and denies in part Procaps motion [ECF No.

1034]tostayPatheonsmotionforattorneysfeesandnontaxablecosts.
MuchofPatheonsfeesrequestisbasedonFloridasDeceptiveandUnfairTrade
PracticesAct(FDUPTA),andFDUPTAdoesnotpermitafeesawardtoaprevailing
party until all appeals are exhausted. The appeal here is far from exhausted, so the
CourtcannotissueafeesjudgmentnowtoPatheonunderFDUPTA.
The Court is not convinced by Patheons argument that I can still decide fees
underFDUPTAnowbutpostponeentryofajudgmentoranactualawarduntilafterall
appeals are finished. Although I might technically be permitted to do that, I find it
inefficientandarguablyinconsistentwiththespiritoftheFDUPTAstatutesprovision

Case 1:12-cv-24356-JG Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2016 Page 2 of 3

concerningattorneysfees.Moreover,someFloridadistrictcourtsappeartoagreewith
thenotionthatthefilingofthefeesmotionshouldfollowtheappellateprocessandthe
EleventhCircuitalsoseemstoadoptthatview.
Thestatuteprovidesthattheprevailingpartymayreceivehisorherreasonable
attorneys fees and costs from the nonprevailing party after judgment in the trial
courtandexhaustionofallappeals,ifany.Itseemsasthoughthestatutedoesseem
tocontemplatethatthemotionbefiledaftertheexpirationoftheappealperiod.Am.
Registry, LLC v. Hanaw, No. 2:13cv352, 2015 WL 5687693 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2015)
(emphasis supplied). In addition, at least two judges in this district have concluded
that filing such a motion is not proper until the exhaustion of all appeals. Id., at *3,
Citibank (S. Dakota) N.A. v. Natl Arbitration Council, Inc., No, 3:04CV1076, 2006 WL
2691528, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2006) (denying without prejudice FDUPTAbased
motion for fees and costs, subject to renewal after either the expiration of the time to
appealortheconclusionofanappeal).SeealsoM.G.B.Homes,Inc.v.AmeronHomes,Inc.,
30 F.3d 113, 115 (11th Cir. 1994) (explaining that FDUPTA expressly includes the
culminationoftheappellateprocessinitsdefinitionofaprevailingpartyforpurposes
ofawardingfeesandcosts).
I recognize that Patheon also seeks fees for the forensic analysis and for events
arisingfromachangeoftheoryundergroundsotherthanFDUPTA.Nevertheless,the
lionsshareoftherequestedfeesariseunderFDUPTAanditwouldmakelittlesenseto
2

Case 1:12-cv-24356-JG Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2016 Page 3 of 3

assessonlyaportionofthefeesawardnowandpossiblyevaluatetheremainderlater,if
thesummaryjudgmentweretobeaffirmedonappeal.
Forthesamereason,itisimpracticaltonowevaluatethenontaxablecosts(i.e.,
thosecostsnotpermittedby28U.S.C.1920)becauseaportionofPatheonsargument
fornontaxablecostsis,again,FDUPTA.
Therefore, I grant Procaps motion to stay Patheons motion for attorneys fees
andnontaxablecostspendingtheexhaustionofallappeals.
However, the same logic does not apply to Patheons request for taxable costs
[ECF No. 1023]. That request is not based on FDUPTA. Instead, it is based solely on
Patheonsstatusastheprevailingparty.Inaddition,Procapshasalreadysubstantively
responded [ECF No. 1026] to the request for taxable costs and provided a
comprehensive,categorybycategoryopposition.Thereisnoneedtopostponeorstay
considerationofthisrequest.
Therefore,theCourtwillsoonenterasubstantiveorderonthetaxablecosts.
DONEANDORDEREDinChambers,inMiami,Florida,January12,2016.

Copiesfurnishedto:
AllCounselofRecord
3