Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn., Inc., No. 6:2011cv01637 - Document 188 (M.D. Fla. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Vacating 183 Order on Motion for Bond; Granting 181 Motion for Approval of Supersedeas Bond and to Stay Final Judgments Pending Appeal. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 12/6/2013. (JU)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn., Inc. Doc. 188 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION AJIT BHOGAITA, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:11-cv-1637-Orl-31DAB ALTAMONTE HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., Defendant. ORDER This matter is before the Court on remand from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration and disposition (“Remand Order”) (Doc. 187) of this Court’s earlier, endorsed Order denying approval of a supersedeas bond and stay of final judgment (“Order Denying Bond”) (Doc. 183). The matter was originally before the Court on Defendants Altamonte Heights Condominium Association, Inc.’s (“Altamonte Heights”) Motion for approval of Supersedeas Bond and to Stay Final Judgment Pending Appeal (“Motion for Bond”) (Doc. 181) and Plaintiff Ajit Bhogaita’s (“Bhogaita”) Response in Opposition to the Motion for Bond (“Response”) (Doc. 182). While Altamonte Heights did file a Reply in Support of the Motion for Bond (“Reply”) (Doc. 184) the filing was improper because Altamonte Heights failed to seek leave of the Court to file a reply, Local Rule 3.01(c), nor did it seek to have the Court reconsider the Order Denying Bond. Upon review of the Remand Order, the materials supplied by the parties, and the Court’s own reconsideration of the underlying matter, the Court has determined that the Motion for Bond is due to be granted. See Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., 313 F.3d 1323, 1332-33 (11th Cir. 2002); c.f. Ins. Co. of Penn. v. City Of Long Beach, 342 F. App'x 274, 277 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that Dockets.Justia.com attorneys’ fees are distinct from costs under 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2)). 1 Accordingly, the Court VACATES the Order Denying Bond (Doc. 183) and GRANTS the Motion for Bond (Doc. 181), the supersedeas bond (Doc. 181-3) is approved and the final judgment is stayed pending appeal. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on December 6, 2013. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party 1 Defendant’s Reply cites to 42 U.S.C. § 1316(c)(2) as the relevant fee provision, (Doc. 184 ¶¶ 16 - 19), that statute, however, addresses the topic of administrative and judicial review of Social Security determinations—not attorney’s fees in Fair Housing Act cases. The Court assumes that this was a typographical error and that Defendants intended to cite 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2). -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
