UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Urbana Division
September 7, 2010
SANDRA C. LEISTER, PHD, PLAINTIFF,
DOVETAIL, INC., MICHELLE PETERSON, AND EVAN PETERSON, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David G. Bernthal U.S. Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Following remand from the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, this Court directed entry of the Third Amended Judgment in a Civil Case (#174) on December 11, 2009. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Petition for Additional Attorney's Fees (#181). Defendants have filed a response in opposition.
Succinctly stated, Plaintiff has relentlessly pursued Defendants for their misconduct relative to Plaintiff's employment. With equal vigor and intensity, Defendants have resisted Plaintiff's every effort. This becomes expensive. The Third Amended Judgment awarded a substantial sum to Plaintiff for the attorney fees she had incurred. That sum did not reflect all of the work done on behalf of the Plaintiff. She seeks a sum to recover additional costs incurred.
The undersigned has considered the petition and opposition. The opposition is brief and mild. The undersigned has concluded that the objections should not bar Plaintiff from recovering the additional fees.
Accordingly, I recommend pursuant to my authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) that Plaintiff's Petition for Additional Attorney's Fees (#181) be GRANTED and additional fees awarded in the sum of $38,832.30.
The parties are advised that any objection to this recommendation must be filed in writing with the clerk within ten working days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to object will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.