Case No.: 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

JORGE MONTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE DE MOYA GROUP, INC.,

a Florida Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ABATE OR STAY ADJUDICATION OF 

DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND SANCTIONS 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Pursuant to S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(a)(1) and Rule 54(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff, JORGE MONTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE, hereby moves the Court 

for an order abating or staying adjudication of Defendant, The DE MOYA GROUP INC’s 

Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions (ECF No. 121) proceedings entirely in this case 

pending the outcome of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58) (hereinafter Defendant’s 

Rule 11 Motion) and in support states:

1. On June 26, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for Extension of Time to Serve and File its 

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions and Incorporated Memorandum of Law given the 

procedural posture of the case at the time. See ECF No. 96. 

2. On June 28, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time tolling the 

deadline for Defendant to file its Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions pursuant to 

Defendant’s request. See ECF No. 98. 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 1 of 7
Case No.: 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Page 2

3. On September 21, 2023, Defendant’s Counsel served Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant’s Verified 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Sanctions and the enclosed billing records pursuant to Local 

Rule 7.3.

4. On October 11, 2023,the undersigned advised Defendant’s counsel that the Defendant’s 

Motion for Fees and Sanctions was premature until the disposition of Defendant’s Rule 11 

Motion.

5. On October 26, 2023, Defendant filed its Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions 

(ECF No. 121). The Motion raises a number of arguments that go to original issues raised in 

Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion.

6. Although Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion remains pending, the current deadline to file a

Response to Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is November 8, 2023. However, the 

Court’s disposition of Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion will likely affect the arguments of Plaintiff’s 

Response to Defendant’s attorneys’ fees motion, especially with regard to a fee award as 

sanctions under 28 U.S.C § 1927. See Collar v. Abalux, Inc., 16-20872-CIV, 2018 WL 3328682, 

at *9 (S.D. Fla. July 5, 2018) (although § 1927 sanctions cover more misconduct than Rule 11, 

“the scope of sanctionable conduct often overlaps”).

7. Therefore, it is Plaintiff’s position that not until the merits of Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion are 

fully concluded, can the attorney fee portion of this case take place in any meaningful fashion

given the potential likelihood that the rulings on Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion will impact 

attorney fee entitlement and amount. To do otherwise and allow litigation and determination

of the fee issue before the outstanding Rule 11 Motion issues are concluded would defeat 

judicial economy.

8. In the interests of judicial economy, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order modifying 

the timing for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and sanctions and 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 2 of 7
Case No.: 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Page 3

extending or tolling the deadline until after there is a ruling on Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion. 

See Bergen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting party could have 

moved the district court for an extension to file motion for fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(d)(2)(B)). 

9. Defendant does not object to Plaintiff’s filing of a motion for an extension of time. Accordingly, 

extending or tolling the deadline to file a response to Defendant’s Verified Motion for 

Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions will not result in unfair surprise or prejudice. 

10. In the event the Court declines to abate or stay adjudication of Defendant’s Verified Motion 

for Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions, Plaintiff requests, in the alternative, that the Court exercise 

its discretion to issue an order granting Plaintiff a 20-day extension to Respond to Defendant’s 

Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions. 

MEMORANDUMOF LAW

Plaintiff submits that the equities favor this Court abating or staying all proceedings 

regarding Defendant’s Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions until such time as all 

proceedings related to Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion, are concluded. Defendant is currently 

claiming attorney's fees in the amount of $252,990.00. See ECF No. 121 at 18-19.

In these circumstances, the Court is well within its discretion to defer or deny ruling on a

request for attorneys’ fees and costs pending resolution of pending Motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 

advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment (explaining that the court may rule, defer, or deny 

the motion without prejudice until the appeal is resolved); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 advisory committee’s 

note to 1993 amendment (when claim for fees “is likely to be affected by the appellate decision, the 

district court may prefer to defer consideration of the claim for fees until after the appeal is 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 3 of 7
Case No.: 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Page 4

resolved”). Courts can also defer ruling sua sponte. See, e.g., Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., No. 

94 CIV. 9144 LAP, 1997 WL 542560, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 1997).

Furthermore, deferring resolution of the motion preserves judicial resources as the parties’

resources. The Court and parties would expend substantial resources litigating the fee issue, which 

could be wasted depending on the outcome of the Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion which is pending.

In any event, the guidance provided by the Court’s findings regarding Defendant’s Rule 11 

Motion, regardless of outcome, will prove helpful to the Court when evaluating a motion for fees. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court an enter order abating or 

staying all proceedings related to Defendant’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Sanctions

entirely in this case pending the outcome of Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion and grant any other 

relief this Court deems just and proper.

[SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 4 of 7
Case No.: 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Page 5

Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certificate of Good Faith Conference

I, Nathaly Saavedra, counsel for Plaintiff, certify that prior to the filing of this motion, I conferred 

with Defendant’s counsel by email on November 2, 2023, in a good faith effort to resolve the issues 

raised in the motion. On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Reginald Clyne, informed the 

undersigned via email that Defendant does not oppose the filing of this motion.

Dated: November 6, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra 

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

P. Brooks, LaRou, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 1039018

Email: brooks@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive,

Suite 290, 

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 5 of 7
Case No.: 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Page 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 6 , 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service 

List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by 

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized 

to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 6 of 7
Case No.: 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Page 7

SERVICE LIST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

P. Brooks, LaRou, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 1039018

Email: brooks@peregonza.com

Jocelyn R. Rocha, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 1039302

Email: jocelyn@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, 

PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive,

Suite 290, 

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: (305) 230-4884

Counsel for Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. and PereGonza 

The Attorneys

Method of Service: CM/ECF notice

Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 654302

reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com

Chanelle Artiles, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 10006402

chanelle.artiles@qpwblaw.com

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.

9300 South Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor

Miami, Florida 33156

Telephone: 305-670-1101

Attorneys for Defendant

Method of Service: CM/ECF notice

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 7 of 7