Hyde Park Storage Suites Daytona, LLC v. Crown Park Storage Suites, LLC
6:20-cv-01320
| M.D. Fla. | Jun 10, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Hyde Park Storage Suites Daytona, LLC and Hyde Park Storage Suites, Inc.) sued Defendants (Crown Park Storage Suites, LLC and Richard A. Loman) for trade dress infringement, false advertising, common law unfair competition, and breach of contract (against Loman only).
- Defendants prevailed at trial on all claims.
- Crown Park and Loman both moved for attorney’s fees and costs; the issue was whether fees could be recovered and, if so, in what amount.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying fees under the Lanham Act, but allowing Loman breach of contract fees only if those fees were segregable from others.
- The District Court adopted this recommendation; Loman subsequently requested $73,805.00 in fees and $5,372.45 in costs.
- Upon review, only $255 in attorney’s fees were found to be properly segregable and recoverable for the breach of contract defense; no costs were awarded to Loman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs’ Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach of contract attorney’s fees are recoverable beyond segregable amounts | Fees should not be broadly recoverable; must be strictly limited to breach of contract defense work only | All work relating to or inseparable from breach of contract claim should be recoverable | Only strictly segregable fees for breach of contract defense recoverable |
| Whether depositions, discovery, and trial fees are segregable for breach of contract claim | Such broad expense allocation is improper; segregation is required | Depositions, discovery, and 219.4 hours of work should be included as related | Most fees not shown to be segregable; only $255 awarded |
| Whether all trial fees are segregable because Loman was restricted to breach of contract claim at trial | Plaintiffs did not focus on this procedural point | Loman claims all trial fees related to breach of contract due to court’s restrictions | Court never restricted as claimed; duplication limits not same as total segregation |
| Whether mediation costs are recoverable | Mediation costs not allowed under contract or 28 U.S.C. § 1920 | Loman seeks recovery of mediation costs | Mediation costs not recoverable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ernest S. ex rel. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990) (de novo review required for magistrate judge objections)
- Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1988) (specific objections required for district court review)
- Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2020) (failure to object to magistrate’s report waives appellate review)