1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-22343-KMM

JORGE MONTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE DE MOYA GROUP, INC., 

Defendant.

_________________________________________ /

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant The De Moya Group, Inc.’s Motion to 

Tax Costs (ECF No. 114) and supplemental materials in support thereof (ECF No. 117). Plaintiff 

Jorge Monteagudo Alburquerque filed a Response (ECF No. 119).1 Having reviewed the Motion 

and the Record, the Motion is DENIED, without prejudice. 

Plaintiff brought two claims for retaliation against Defendant under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, §§ 706(a) and 706(g) and the Florida Civil Rights Act §§ 760.01 et seq. (ECF 

No. 13). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged theories of retaliatory harassment and 

retaliatory termination by his employer. 

Defendant prevailed on summary judgment, resulting in dismissal of both of Plaintiff’s 

claims. (ECF No. 87). Plaintiff appealed the District Court’s Order to the Eleventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals. (ECF No. 113). On July 8, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, in part, the District 

1 The Motion was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Judge to 

take all necessary and proper action as required by law. (ECF No. 115). 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2024 Page 1 of 2
2

Court’s Order on Summary Judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. 

Monteagudo v. De Moya Grp., Inc., No. 23-13157, 2024 WL 3321082 (11th Cir. July 8, 2024).

Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs is premised upon a final judgment that was entered in its 

favor following the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and was 

filed prior to the Eleventh Circuit’s decision. (ECF No. 114). To recover costs under Rule 

54(d)(1), the party must be the prevailing party. Highland Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Minjares, No. 

19-CV-81636, 2024 WL 776792, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2024), report and recommendation 

adopted sub nom. Highlands Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Soule, No. 19-CV-81636, 2024 WL 776057 

(S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2024). 

Given the Eleventh Circuit’s reversal, the undersigned conducted a telephonic status 

conference on August 8, 2024 to ascertain the Parties’ positions on whether the reversal rendered 

the Motion premature. With agreement from both parties, and without objection from movant 

Defendant, the Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED, without prejudice to renew.

2

DONE AND ORDERED in open court in Miami, Florida, on this 8th day of August, 2024. 

____________________________________

LAUREN F. LOUIS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies to:

Honorable K. Michael Moore

Counsel of Record

2 Defense counsel proffered at the hearing that rehearing is sought on the mandate. Even if Defendant is successful 

there, and no further proceedings are ultimately conducted on remand in this Court, it was without dispute that the 

Motion for Costs was at this posture premature. 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2024 Page 2 of 2