Order: WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP VS WILLIAMS, WALTER J

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                dy

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 09-36802 CA (11)
WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.
FLORIDA SOL CORP., et al.,

Defendants.
/

ORDER ON COMCAST DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on May 1, 2015 on Comcast Defendants’
BB,

Motion for Attorney’s Fees dated February 13, 2015 (“Motion”). The Court hav ing beard 3
2

a

argument of counsel, having reviewed the record and being otherwise duly advised ifthe)

 

premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
nN

1. The Motion is hereby GRANTED, as to entitlement. This Ruling is baseld orfthe

 

following findings by the Court:

a. The Comcast Defendants’ Offer of Judgment, dated July 2, 2013, is valid,
enforceable, and was made in good faith;

b. The Offer of Judgment complied with Section 768.79 and Rule 1.442;

c. Apportionment of the Offer of Judgment was not necessary because all
Plaintiffs and the Comcast Defendants were treated collectively
throughout the pretrial proceedings and the trial by Plaintiffs;

d. Apportionment of Comcast’s Offer of Judgment was also not required
because of the vicarious liability exception in Rule 1.442(c)(4), which the

Court finds is applicable here;e. The Offer of Judgment was not ambiguous and sufficiently identified the
parties to allow the offerees to consider the Offer of Judgment;

f. The Offer of Judgment stated all relevant conditions with sufficient
particularity;

g. The Offer of Judgment was properly served. The Court finds that the
affidavits presented by Plaintiffs are insufficient to rebut the prima facie
proof of service established by the Certificate of Service of the Offer of
Judgment. Plaintiffs’ ore tenus request for an evidentiary hearing to
resolve the factual issues related to service of the Offer of Judgment is
denied.;

h. Plaintiffs’ argument that the Offer of Judgment violated Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights is frivolous and without basis;

i. William Johnson was properly and lawfully representing the Comcast
Defendants in this matter pro hac vice when the Offer of Judgment was
served; and

j. The Offer of Judgment was reasonable and not nominal. The offer of
$150,000 exceeded the jury award and was made in 2013 based on a
sound analysis of the potential liability.

2. An evidentiary hearing will be held on September 25, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. to
determine the number of hours reasonably spent by Comcast’s counsel defending this case after
July 2, 2013; the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate; and the total amount due and owing to

Comcast for its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action.DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida, this _/ 2 day of

May, 2015.

Copies furnished to:

 

(All counsel of record)