Auto Club Family Insurance Company v. Moroney, 2:16-cv-02789-JAR-JPO. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20180330b45
Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO DEFER OR DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE COUNTERCLAIMANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST JULIE A. ROBINSON , Chief District Judge . The Court has before it the parties' Joint Motion to Defer or Dismiss Without Prejudice the Counterclaimants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Postjudgment Interest (Doc. 22). The Court grants the relief requested on the basis of judicial efficiency and fairness, as set out in the joint motion and in
Summary: ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO DEFER OR DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE COUNTERCLAIMANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST JULIE A. ROBINSON , Chief District Judge . The Court has before it the parties' Joint Motion to Defer or Dismiss Without Prejudice the Counterclaimants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Postjudgment Interest (Doc. 22). The Court grants the relief requested on the basis of judicial efficiency and fairness, as set out in the joint motion and in p..
More
ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO DEFER OR DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE COUNTERCLAIMANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST
JULIE A. ROBINSON, Chief District Judge.
The Court has before it the parties' Joint Motion to Defer or Dismiss Without Prejudice the Counterclaimants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Postjudgment Interest (Doc. 22). The Court grants the relief requested on the basis of judicial efficiency and fairness, as set out in the joint motion and in previous orders of this Court.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion to Defer or Deny Without Prejudice (Doc. 24) is granted. The Court denies without prejudice the Counterclaimants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Postjudgment Interest (Doc. 22). The Counterclaimants may renew their motion, if not moot, in accord with D. Kan. Rule 54.2 within 14 days of the date the Tenth Circuit issues a mandate in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Hudson v. AIH Receivable Mgmt. Servs., Case No. 10-2287-JAR, 2012 WL 13026795, at *2 (D. Kan. Dec. 7, 2012) ("Because Defendant has appealed numerous issues of law, the Court finds that the interests of judicial efficiency and fairness weigh in favor of waiting for a mandate from the Tenth Circuit before awarding or denying attorneys' fees in this matter.") (citations omitted); Rural Water Dist. No. 4, Douglas Cty., Kan. v. City of Eudora, Case No. 07-2463-JAR, 2010 WL 11566095, at *1 (D. Kan. Jan. 11, 2010) (same).
Source: Leagle
