TISCARENO v. FRASIER, 2:07-cv-00336. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20160311e06
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER CLARK WADDOUPS , District Judge . This matter came before the court on Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees pursuant to the court's order awarding fees as a sanction for Defendant IHC's bad faith conduct in the litigation. (Dkt. No. 533). Defendant responded by asking the court to reconsider its original order authorizing sanctions, or, in the alternative, to clarify the scope of its sanctions order. (Dkt. No. 541). Defendant also asked the court to strike port
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER CLARK WADDOUPS , District Judge . This matter came before the court on Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees pursuant to the court's order awarding fees as a sanction for Defendant IHC's bad faith conduct in the litigation. (Dkt. No. 533). Defendant responded by asking the court to reconsider its original order authorizing sanctions, or, in the alternative, to clarify the scope of its sanctions order. (Dkt. No. 541). Defendant also asked the court to strike porti..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
CLARK WADDOUPS, District Judge.
This matter came before the court on Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees pursuant to the court's order awarding fees as a sanction for Defendant IHC's bad faith conduct in the litigation. (Dkt. No. 533). Defendant responded by asking the court to reconsider its original order authorizing sanctions, or, in the alternative, to clarify the scope of its sanctions order. (Dkt. No. 541). Defendant also asked the court to strike portions of Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees. (Dkt. No. 537). The court held a hearing on the motion to reconsider and motion to strike on March 9, 2016. After careful consideration of the parties' filings, oral arguments, record evidence, relevant authority, and otherwise being fully advised, the court hereby ORDERS, for the reasons stated on the record:
(1) Defendant's motion to reconsider or clarify (Dkt. No. 541) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court denies the request to reconsider its prior sanctions order but clarifies the scope of its sanctions ruling going forward. Plaintiffs may recover attorney fees limited to the amount of fees incurred litigating the state action issue in the period of time between September 2011 and February 2013.
(2) Defendant's motion to strike (Dkt. No. 537) is DENIED as moot, based on the court's clarification of its sanctions order.
(3) Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees (Dkt. No. 533) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiffs are directed to submit a renewed motion for attorney fees, consistent with the court's sanctions order as clarified, within thirty days of receiving the transcript of the March 9, 2016 hearing.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
