MIAMI -- A federal court has granted in part and denied in part a motion by sheriff Scott Israel and captain Wayne Adkins to assess costs against USA Entertainment Group Inc. and motion to stay in its lawsuit against USA Entertainment and the city of Pompano Beach.
The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida, through U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom's opinion, only partially agreed with the defendants’ motions.
USA Entertainment Group had sued Israel, , the Broward Sheriff’s Office, the city of Pompano Beach, Lamar Fisher and Charlotte Burrie, alleging they violated 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and 18 U.S.C. sections 1961 and 1962. USA Entertainment Group voluntarily dismissed the suit, but that wasn’t the end of the legal battle.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom
The suit was refiled with the same allegations in a case that is pending.
The court found that awarding attorneys’ fees is a bit premature at this stage of the litigation. If the plaintiff were to win the new case, the attorney fees would have to be offset. And if the defendants win, the award would have to be recalculated to include the award from the first case.
Considering this, the district court said it would be best to determine an award for attorney fees for the defendant after the actual case is settled. In the meantime, the defendants can recover the costs it sustained from the first action that the plaintiff previously dismissed, “to the extent that the costs borne will not be useful in this suit,” the court added. The defendants have until Feb. 21 to prove the costs and the attorney fees will have to wait until the new lawsuit concludes.
In making its ruling, the court noted that while opposing the motion, the plaintiff submitted an e-mail conversation between both sides to back its claim that the defendants were not only aware of USA Entertainment Group’s motive to voluntarily dismiss the action but consented to it. Still, that wasn’t enough to convince the court that the plaintiff didn’t owe the defendants court costs.
“After a review of the e-mail chain, the court notes that while the parties consented to the dismissal of the action, the plaintiff made no representation to the defendants that it intended to refile the action at a later time,” the court ruled.
On top of that, the plaintiffs' challenge that the defendants didn’t properly state a clear legal prejudice, if any, doesn’t have any grounds, the court said. Especially since the defendants provided enough detail in their motion. “The court finds that the explicit requirements of Rule 41(d) have been satisfied,” Bloom wrote.