MACORT v. CHECKER DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC. (M.D.Fla. 2005)

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Case No. 8:03-cv-1328-T-30EAJ.

Advocates

Bartosz A. Ostrzenski, Ostrzenski Stricklin P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, Gregory E. Schwartz, Schwartz Zweben Associates, LLP, Hollywood, FL, Gene R. Zweben, Schwartz Zweben Associates, LLP, Stuart, FL, Attorney for Colleen Macort Plaintiff. Bartosz A. Ostrzenski, Ostrzenski Stricklin P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, Gregory E. Schwartz, Schwartz Zweben Associates, LLP, Hollywood, FL, Attorney for Access Now, Inc. Plaintiff. Brian T. McElfatrick, Bush, Ross, Gardner, Warren Rudy, P.A., Tampa, FL, Edward O. Savitz, Bush, Ross, Gardner, Warren Rudy, P.A., Tampa, FL, Attorney for Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. Defendant.

Judges

James S. Moody

Acts

The Public Health And Welfare — Equal Opportunity For Individuals With Disabilities — Miscellaneous Provisions — Attorney’S Fees

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

COLLEEN MACORT and ACCESS NOW, INC., Plaintiffs, v. CHECKER DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC., a foreign corporation, d/b/a Checkers Dri

ORDER

JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Fees and Costs (Dkt. #27) and Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Fees and Costs (Dkt. #28). The Court, having considered the Motion and Memoranda, and being otherwise fully advised, finds that the motion should be denied.

The purpose of the ADA is to ensure accessibility to public accommodations for disabled individuals, not to enrich attorneys.See Brother v. Tiger Partner, LLC, 331 F.Supp.2d 1368, 1375 (M.D.Fla. 2004) ("the means for enforcing the ADA (attorney's fees) have become more important and desirable than the end (accessibility for disabled individuals)"). This Court is not inclined to award attorney's fees for prosecuting a lawsuit when a pre-suit letter to the Defendant would have achieved the same result. As Judge Presnell has noted:

One might reasonably ask whether attorney's fees should be awarded where no effort is made pre-suit to obtain voluntary compliance. After all, if the litigation achieves no result other than that which could be accomplished by agreement, what social or economic value has been added by the lawyer's decision to file a suit without warning? Indeed, under this scenario, it would seem that litigation carries only negative economic value-it has accomplished nothing but expense and waste of precious judicial resources.

Rodriguez v. Investco, L.L.C., 305 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1282 n. 14 (M.D.Fla. 2004). Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, declines to award Plaintiffs attorney's fees.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, the Court, "in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation expenses, and costs . . ."

It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Fees and Costs (Dkt. #27) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Dkt. #29) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.

COLLEEN MACORT and ACCESS NOW, INC., Plaintiffs, v. CHECKER DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC., a foreign corporation, d/b/a Checkers Dri

Comments