1 

MIAMI 9373609.1 84482/88966

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

BROWARD DIVISION 

IN RE: 

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON CASE NO: 20-19106-SMG 

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’JUMP 

 Debtor, 

_______________________________________/ 

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON ADVERSARY NO.: 19-01230-SMG 

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’JUMP 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC, 

and XBK MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a 

XTREME ACTION PARK, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

DEFENDANT MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

VERIFIED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND NONTAXABLE COSTS 

Defendant MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC (“MDG Powerline”), by and through 

undersigned counsel, submits its Reply in Support of its Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Nontaxable Costs. 

MDG Powerline has moved for an award of $343,518.00 in attorneys’ fees and $9,141.23 

in nontaxable costs incurred in its successful defense against all of Plaintiff’s claims.1

 See ECF 

                                                             1 A bill of taxable costs in the amount of $10,436.42 was previously entered by the court 

clerk. See ECF No. 270. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 300 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 8
2 

MIAMI 9373609.1 84482/88966

No. 258 at 13. In its Response to MDG Powerline’s Motion, Plaintiff Seven Stars on the Hudson 

Corp. (“Seven Stars”) concedes that MDG Powerline is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and 

nontaxable costs for the reasons advanced in the Motion. See ECF No. 294 ¶ 1. Significantly, 

Seven Stars does not question the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by the attorneys 

representing MDG Powerline in this matter, either. Id. 

Rather, Seven Stars complains in its Response that (1) the billing records submitted in 

support of MDG Powerline’s Motion constitute “block billing,” and (2) MDG Powerline’s 

attorneys billed for “administrative” tasks. Id. Seven Stars also implies, but never quite says, that 

some 23 time entries – out of the 21 pages of time entries submitted by MDG Powerline in support 

of its Motion – were unreasonable or excessive. See Id. ¶ 3(a)-(w); ECF No. 258, Ex. 3D. In its 

Response, Seven Stars requests an “across the board” reduction of MDG Powerline’s fees – and 

essentially concedes that an award equal to two-thirds of the fees requested would be reasonable. 

Id. 

Seven Stars asserts in its Response that it is “unrealistic” for the Court – or for Seven Stars, 

apparently – to review and identify all of the time entries it deems objectionable. Seven Stars 

misunderstands the law. “Because reducing the hours claimed requires the court's precision, the 

law in this circuit commands that both the proof of the hours spent in litigation and any 

corresponding objections posed be voiced with a similar exactitude.” Duckworth v. Whisenant, 

97 F.3d 1393, 1397 (11th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). See also American Civil Liberties Union 

of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir. 1999) (“objections and proof from fee opponents 

concerning hours that should be excluded must be specific and reasonably precise”). Seven Stars’ 

vague objections to a small subset of time entries is woefully inadequate to justify the drastic fee 

reduction it seeks in its Response. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 300 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 8
3 

MIAMI 9373609.1 84482/88966

Seven Stars also sweeps with too broad a brush in dismissing all of MDG Powerline’s time 

entries as “block billing.” “The mere fact that an attorney has included more than one task in a 

single billing entry is not, in itself, evidence of impermissible block-billing. When those tasks are 

intertwined, including a thorough description of the activities performed clarifies, rather than 

obscures, the record.” Zendejas v. Redman, 2019 WL 1429403, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2019) 

(quoting Williams v. R.W. Cannon, Inc., 657 F.Supp.2d 1302, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2009)). Moreover, 

“[a]s a general proposition block billing is not prohibited so long as the Court can determine from 

the time entry the services that were performed.” Id. MDG Powerline submits that its time entries 

are sufficiently detailed and specific such that the Court could determine the services performed – 

and further find that all the fees sought by MDG Powerline were reasonable and necessary to 

defend this action. 

Nevertheless, MDG Powerline recognizes that, under the law of this Circuit, a trial court 

reviewing a fee application may make an “across the board” reduction in fees where the fee 

documentation is “voluminous.” See Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1994). 

While MDG Powerline maintains that Seven Stars has failed to raise or identify specific objections 

sufficient to merit a one-third “across the board” reduction in its attorneys’ fees, MDG Powerline 

will agree to a judgment reflecting a reduction of its attorneys’ fees by that amount in order to put 

this matter to rest without incurring additional litigation expenses.2

Accordingly, based on the representations made by Seven Stars in its Response, and for 

the reasons stated above and in its Motion, MDG Powerline respectfully requests that the Court 

                                                             2 MDG Powerline reserves the right to pursue the entirety of its fee claim in the event that 

Seven Stars were to withdraw its Response to the Fee Motion, or otherwise change its position or 

attempt to raise additional challenges to MDG Powerline’s fee application. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 300 Filed 04/07/22 Page 3 of 8
4 

MIAMI 9373609.1 84482/88966

grant MDG Powerline’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in part and enter a Final Judgment in favor of 

MDG Powerline awarding: 

1. $229,012.00 in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party in this action; 

2. $9,141.23 in nontaxable costs; and 

3. $10,436.42 in taxable costs.3

 Attached as Exhibit A to this Reply is a proposed Final Judgment reflecting these 

uncontested attorneys’ fees and costs for MDG Powerline. 

Dated: April 7, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA 

 PRICE & AXELROD LLP 

 1450 Brickell Avenue, 23rd Floor 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 (305) 374-7580 

 By: /s/ Jay M. Sakalo 

 Jay M. Sakalo 

 Fla. Bar No. 156310 

 and 

COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L. 

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse One 

Miami, Florida 33133 

Tel: 305-858-2900 

Fax: 305-858-5261 

By: ___s/Scott Hiaasen__________ 

Susan E. Raffanello, Florida Bar No. 676446 

sraffanello@coffeyburlington.com 

Scott A. Hiaasen, Florida Bar No.: 103318 

shiaasen@coffeyburlington.com 

lmaltz@coffeyburlington.com 

lperez@coffeyburlington.com 

service@coffeyburlington.com

Counsel for Defendant MDG Powerline 

Holdings, LLC 

                                                             3 See ECF No. 270, Bill of Costs.

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 300 Filed 04/07/22 Page 4 of 8
5 

MIAMI 9373609.1 84482/88966

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by Notice of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF, on April 7, 2022, on all counsel or parties of record on 

the below/attached Service List. 

___s/Jay Sakalo__________ 

 

Service List 

Kathleen A. Daly, Esq. 

Counsel for Debtor/Plaintiff 

Law Office of Kathleen A. Daly, P.A. 

515 North Flagler Drive 

Suite P300 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 

Tel: 561-293-8514 

kdaly@kadalylaw.com 

Kai Jacobs, Esq. 

Counsel for XBK Management LLC

Kai Jacobs, P.A. 

2222 Ponce de Leon Blvd. 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Tel: 305-768-9846 

kj@sflblg.com

assistant@sflblg.com 

 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 300 Filed 04/07/22 Page 5 of 8
6 

MIAMI 9373609.1 84482/88966

EXHIBIT A 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 300 Filed 04/07/22 Page 6 of 8
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

IN RE: 

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON CASE NO: 19-17544-SMG 

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’JUMP 

 Debtor, 

_______________________________________/ 

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON ADVERSARY NO.: 19-01230-SMG 

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’JUMP 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC, 

and XBK MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a 

XTREME ACTION PARK, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 300 Filed 04/07/22 Page 7 of 8
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT MDG POWERLINE 

HOLDINGS, LLC’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting in part Defendant MDG Powerline Holdings, 

LLC’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Nontaxable Costs [ECF No. 258] and its Bill of 

Taxable Costs [ECF No. 270], Final Judgment is entered by this Court in favor of Defendant 

MDG Powerline Holdings, LLC, and against Plaintiff Seven Stars on the Hudson Corporation 

as follows: 

 IT IS ADJUDGED that MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC, at the address of 18001 

Collins Avenue, 31st Floor, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160, shall recover from SEVEN STARS 

ON THE HUDSON CORPORATION, at the address of 2108 N.E. 63rd Street, Fort Lauderdale, 

Florida 33308, the sum of $248,589.65, that shall bear interest in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

1961 from the date of this Judgment until the date this amount is paid, for which let execution 

issue forthwith. 

### 

Submitted By:

Jay M. Sakalo 

Florida Bar No. 0156310 

BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 

1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300 

Miami, Florida 33134 

Telephone: (305) 374-7580 

Facsimile: (305) 351-2253 

E-mail: jsakalo@bilzin.com 

Copies furnished to: 

Jay M. Sakalo, Esq. 

[Attorney Sakalo is hereby directed to serve a copy of this Order upon all parties in interest and to 

file a certificate of service of same.] 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 300 Filed 04/07/22 Page 8 of 8