CopyCited 105 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 38 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 411, 88 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 721, 2014 WL 1775875, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8477, 97 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45, 068
...Sarbanes–Oxley does not authorize a court to award fees to a prevailing defendant.
5
Case: 13-12785 Date Filed: 05/06/2014 Page: 6 of 19
See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(1). The FWA does. Fla. Stat. § 448.104....
...B
We turn next to the question whether Appellees’ fee award was proper
under the FWA. The statute provides a court with the discretion to award
attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. Fla. Stat. § 448.104....
CopyCited 74 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 592, 10 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 84, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1806, 1994 WL 643760
...(b) Reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before the retaliatory personnel action, or to an equivalent position. (c) Reinstatement of full fringe benefits and seniority rights. (d) Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration. (e) Any other compensatory damages allowable at law. Section 448.104, Florida Statutes (1993), provides for attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party....
CopyCited 26 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 36 A.L.R. 6th 845, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 873, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 266, 2005 WL 280337
...Rather, the rules are promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court, the head of the judicial branch of state government, under the authority given to it by article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution. Thus, it cannot be said that the Bar rules are either laws, rules, or regulations as defined in section 448.104, despite their designation as "rules." If it is true that Ruden, McClosky dismissed Ms....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5554, 1998 WL 188124
...However, in the ad damnum clause, Plaintiff requested that the state court award him damages which included: compensation for lost wages, benefits and other remunerations; [2] prejudgment interest on all monetary awards; attorney's fees, court costs and expenses pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 448.104; and all other compensatory damages allowable at law (Docket No....
...This Court will now address Plaintiff's ad damnum clause. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks compensation for lost wages, benefits and other remunerations; prejudgment interest on all monetary awards; attorney's fees, court costs and expenses pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 448.104; and all other compensatory damages allowable at law....
...Therefore, this Court will not consider Plaintiff's request for prejudgment interest. Attorney's fees will also not be considered. First, attorney's fees are not listed as a remedy available to employees under Fla. Stat. §
448.103. They are, however, provided for pursuant to section
448.104, which states "A court may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses to the prevailing party." Fla.Stat. §
448.104 (1997)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 327505
...The final judgment was entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding Akre $425,000 in damages. We reversed after concluding that Akre had failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. We also granted WTVT's motion for appellate attorney's fees under section 448.104, Florida Statutes (1997), which states, "[a] court may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses to the prevailing party." In her motion for rehearing, Akre argues that because section 448.104 authorizes an award of attorney's fees to prevailing defendants as well as to prevailing plaintiffs, this court should apply the standard articulated in Christiansburg Garment Co....
...In Christiansburg, the Court had to determine the proper standard for an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII gives courts discretion to award fees to the prevailing party, as does section 448.104, but it does not give any indication of when a court should award fees to a prevailing plaintiff or a prevailing defendant....
...evailing plaintiffs and defendants apply to cases brought under section
448.103. To the extent that this question has been addressed by other courts, they have likewise concluded that the Christiansburg standard is not applicable to fee awards under section
448.104....
...See Gamb v. Hilton Hotels Corp., No. 95-466-CIV-ORL-19,
1997 WL 893874 (M.D.Fla. Sept.26, 1997), aff'd,
132 F.3d 46 (11th Cir.1997); McGregor v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 130 F.R.D. 464 (S.D.Fla.1990), aff'd,
956 F.2d 1017 (11th Cir.1992). Nevertheless, because section
448.104 is not mandatory, we must consider whether to exercise our discretion and make such an award in this case....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22849390
...substantially equivalent information without undue hardship. In the underlying case, Lynn Hillman, Mary Patricia Bosner, and Roberta James (the Respondents) were the prevailing plaintiffs in a whistle-blower action against Blake Medical. Pursuant to section 448.104, Florida Statutes (1997), the judgment entered in favor of the Respondents also determined that they were entitled to attorney's fees....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 3024709
...iled a whistleblower action against Blake pursuant to section
448.103, Florida Statutes (2001). [1] In the consolidated case, Blake appeals the final judgment that awarded attorney's fees and costs to the Plaintiffs as prevailing parties pursuant to section
448.104, Florida Statutes (2001)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17400, 1997 WL 688802
...In addition, the trial judge must have discretion in considering the equities to decide which party to the litigation actually prevailed on significant issues. See Prosperi v. Code, Inc.,
626 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1993). An award of attorneys' fees under §
448.104, Florida Statutes is a matter of discretion for the court. The statute specifically provides: A court may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses to the prevailing party. See §
448.104, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44536, 2012 WL 1071956
...Attorneys Reino, Channapasappa, and Avery are permitted to formally withdraw as counsel for their respective clients. 3. Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and sanctions (Doc. 156), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: The motion is GRANTED with respect to the request for fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.104 and DENIED with respect to the request for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C....
...294) is DENIED, with Defendants to be awarded attorneys’ fees for their expenses incurred in opposing the motion. 1 Defendants shall file proof of attorneys’ fees incurred in opposing the Rule 11 sanctions motion within thirty (30) days. 5. Plaintiff is found liable for attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.104 , and the parties shall immediately commence complying with N.D....
...(“GCTC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (see Doc. 204, referring Doc. 156). Plaintiff Leslie Smith (“Plaintiff’), through her attorney Richard E. Johnson (“Johnson”), filed a response to Defendants’ motion, opposing their demand for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.104 ; on his own behalf Johnson also opposes Defendants’ request for sanctions against counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C....
...unsupportable — accusations, other than to state that the fact Johnson would feel free to make such wild assertions reflects, at the very least, a shocking lack of professional judgment, self-restraint, and discretion. Fees Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.104 Defendants assert that as the prevailing parties 9 in this lawsuit they are entitled under Fla. Stat. § 448.104 to fees incurred in defending Plaintiffs FWA claim because Plaintiff did not act in good faith and her claim had no arguable merit in fact or law (Doc. 156 at 3). Plaintiff submits that for two reasons the demand for fees pursuant to § 448.104 should be denied: (1) under Supremacy Clause principles, the SOX fees provision (which authorizes an award of fees only to the prevailing employee) preempts the FWA fees provision (which authorizes an award of fees to the prevailing party)...
...Accordingly, the court concludes that the SOX fees provision does not preempt the FWA fees provision. An additional case the court and the parties have addressed in connection with Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants’ demand for fees pursuant to § 448.104 is Alansari v....
...” Alansari, 395 Fed.Appx. at 632 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this court does not agree with Plaintiffs argument that simply because her SOX and FWA claims are both “about retaliation” and are based on common facts, an award of attorneys’ fees to Defendants under § 448.104 is precluded....
...ment Co. v. EEOC,
434 U.S. 412, 422 ,
98 S.Ct. 694 ,
54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). In this case, Plaintiff apparently concedes that the courts which have addressed the issue have found the Christiansburg standard to be inapplicable to claims for fees under §
448.104, which means that a prevailing defendant need not show that the plaintiffs claim was frivolous in order to recover attorneys’ fees. New World Communications of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre,
866 So.2d 1231, 1235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Gamb v. Hilton Hotels Corp.,
1997 WL 893874 , at *2 (M.D.Fla.1997) (finding award of attorneys’ fees under §
448.104 does not require a showing of frivolity), aff'd,
132 F.3d 46 (11th Cir.1997); Stone v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.,
2006 WL 3333674 , at *3 (M.D.Fla. 2006) (“The Christiansburg standard is not applicable to fee awards under §
448.104.”)....
...Accordingly, as Defendants are the prevailing parties in this case, they are entitled to receive attorneys’ fees without being required to show that Plaintiffs FWA claim was frivolous. As noted, courts have discretion in deciding whether or not to award attorneys’ fees under § 448.104....
...volous claim, fees need not be denied as “it is not a precondition to an award to show that the losing party acted in bad faith or brought a frivolous claim.” Id. at 1035. As noted in Bush v. Raytheon Co.,
2009 WL 5128040 , at *2 (M.D.Fla.2009), §
448.104 does not set out any particular elements for courts to consider in deciding whether an award of fees is appropriate....
...In summary, on balance, the five Raytheon factors favor Defendants. Given the above discussion, as well as its own familiarity with aspects of the history of this case, the court concludes that the district court may properly exercise its discretion and award Defendants reasonable attorneys’ fees under § 448.104 as the prevailing parties on Plaintiffs FWA claim....
...SUMMARY As discussed above, the court denies Plaintiffs motion to file the affidavit of Michael D. Kohn (Doc. 286). Further, it recommends that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and sanctions (Doc. 156) be granted to the extent they seek attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.104 on Plaintiffs FWA claim and denied to the extent they seek sanctions against Plaintiffs counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C....
...counsel for their respective clients. 2. Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and sanctions (Doc. 156), be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: The motion should be GRANTED with respect to the request for fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.104 and DENIED with respect to the request for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C....
...294) be DENIED, with Defendants to be awarded attorneys’ fees for their expenses incurred in opposing the motion. 4. If the district court adopts the undersigned’s recommendation that Plaintiff be found liable for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.104 , the parties shall immediately commence complying with *1280 N.D....
...§
57.105 , but later withdrew that demand (Doc. 250). Defendants also clarified that their demand for sanctions pursuant to § 1927 is against Plain *1247 tiff's counsel only, not Plaintiff (id.). Accordingly, Defendants now seek only fees against Plaintiff under §
448.104 and sanctions against her counsel pursuant to § 1927....
...Thus the statute does not provide for awards to prevailing employers and is mandatory in nature. The fees provision of the FWA states that "[a] court may award reasonable *1256 attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses to the prevailing party.” Fla. Slat. § 448.104 (emphasis added)....
...tions to the order, which objections the district court overruled in a lengthy order. See Johnson v. Stein Mart, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-341-J-34TEM, Document # 104. . The court addresses an additional issue in connection with its recommendation that § 448.104 fees be awarded to Defendants....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1578, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14442, 2002 WL 1868135
...Avnet Computer Technologies, Inc.,
134 F.3d 1054 (11th Cir.1998), which essentially holds that an arbitration agreement, to be enforceable, must enable the arbitrators to provide relief equivalent to court remedies. Florida law provides attorney's fees as of right to the prevailing party in a whistle-blower action. See §
448.104, Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 439, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10267, 1997 WL 541210
...n and could not be retroactively applied. Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh,
645 So.2d 422 (Fla.1994). Based on the Florida Supreme Court decision, the trial court dismissed Rehman's action with prejudice. The court later awarded attorney's fees to ECC under section
448.104....
...The defendants' withdrawal of their claim for attorney's fees terminated the pending action for fees and there was nothing to "revive." Thus, the defendants' "renewed" motion for attorney's fees did not renew anything and was a nullity. REVERSED. HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 448.104 provides that the court may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs and expenses to the prevailing party.
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2014 WL 1379141, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49062
...On April 26, 2013, Hernandez filed a claim for discrimination and wrongful termination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (See id. ¶ 82). Hernandez’s Complaint states four state-law claims for relief. Count I alleges Publix violated the Florida "Whistleblower Act (“FWA”), Florida Statute section 448.104....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 34, 2010 WL 21068
...tration Association and arbitrators. In June 2006, Bee filed a complaint in the Miami-Dade circuit court against BDO seeking confirmation of the final arbitration award and an award by the court of attorney's fees and costs under sections
448.08 and
448.104....
...agreement. As that agreement did not involve compensation or partnership distributions, it does not affect the analysis here. [3] One of the three members of the arbitration panel dissented from these and certain other findings of the majority. [4] § 448.104 shifts attorney's fees and costs in favor of the prevailing party in a so-called "whistleblower" action....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 263949
...itlement to fees under that statute, DeSocio was on notice that Sonic would be entitled to fees if it prevailed. It is true that Sonic was denominated the prevailing party by the arbitrator, thus triggering its potential for entitlement to fees; but section 448.104 is not an automatic entitlement provision. Rather, the statute provides that "a court may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses to the prevailing party." § 448.104 (emphasis supplied)....
...ailure as insignificant because DeSocio had not demonstrated that the arbitration rules required it. The court further found that Sonic was entitled to attorney's fees and costs because the arbitrator had denominated Sonic the prevailing party under section 448.104, yet in reality the arbitration award simply stated that Sonic was the prevailing party "[f]or purposes of this arbitration." In any event, Sonic waived any entitlement to attorney's fees....
