Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC. v. JOYE, 2:12-cv-00517-MCE-DAD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140424851 Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. By Memorandum and Order filed February 5, 2014, this Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Diana Joye, as Trustee of the Dena Trust, and the Dena Trust, a California Trust ("Defendants"). As the prevailing party in this litigation, Defendants now seek attorney's fees in the amount of $122,691.44 under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), California Civil Code 1717(a), and the terms of the under
More

ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

By Memorandum and Order filed February 5, 2014, this Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Diana Joye, as Trustee of the Dena Trust, and the Dena Trust, a California Trust ("Defendants"). As the prevailing party in this litigation, Defendants now seek attorney's fees in the amount of $122,691.44 under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), California Civil Code § 1717(a), and the terms of the underlying lease agreement itself. That request is properly before the Court inasmuch as the litigation here has been resolved in its entirety.

On March 5, 2014, however, Plaintiff Payless Shoesource, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a Notice of Appeal from the judgment entered against it on February 5, 2014 Defendants' request for attorney's fees was made two weeks later, on February 19, 2014, despite that appeal.

This Court may defer its ruling on attorney's fees when an appeal on the merits is pending. See 1993 Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) ("if an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the [district] court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved"); see also Dumas v. New United Motor Mfg., 2007 WL 1880377 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

Given the pendency of Plaintiff's appeal, Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 60) is DENIED1 at this juncture, without prejudice to being renewed following disposition of this matter upon appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court ordcered this submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer