Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. RaPower-3, LLC, 2:15-cv-00828-DN. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Utah Number: infdco20181231893 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HEIDEMAN & ASSOCIATES' MOTION FOR RELIEF DAVID NUFFER , District Judge . The law firm of Heideman & Associates (the "Firm") filed a motion (the "Motion") 1 for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), 59(e), and 60(b)(6) from the Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reasonable Expenses and Attorneys' Fees (the "Fee Order"). 2 Specifically, the Firm asks that the Fee Order be amended so as to relieve the
More

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HEIDEMAN & ASSOCIATES' MOTION FOR RELIEF

The law firm of Heideman & Associates (the "Firm") filed a motion (the "Motion")1 for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), 59(e), and 60(b)(6) from the Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reasonable Expenses and Attorneys' Fees (the "Fee Order").2 Specifically, the Firm asks that the Fee Order be amended so as to relieve the Firm of liability for any fees and costs awarded in the Fee Order.

Based on the arguments of the parties, the evidence presented, and the current state of the record,3 and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion4 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. The Fee Order5 is hereby amended so as to apply only to Defendants Neldon Johnson, RaPower-3 LLC, International Automated Systems Inc., and LTB1 LLC. The Firm shall not be liable for any amount awarded or owed under the Fee Order.5

2. The Judgment for Attorney Fees6 entered against Defendants and the Firm is hereby amended so as to apply only to Defendants Neldon Johnson, RaPower-3 LLC, International Automated Systems Inc., and LTB1 LLC. The Firm shall not be liable for any amount awarded or owed under the Judgment for Attorney Fees.6

FootNotes


1. Rule 52(b), Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief ("Motion"), docket no. 503, filed November 9, 2018; see United States' Opposition to Heideman & Associates Rule 52(b), Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief, supra note 513, filed November 21, 2018; Reply Memorandum in Support of Rule 52(b), Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief, docket no. 517, filed November 28, 2018.
2. Docket no. 480, filed October 23, 2018. The Fee Order was based on the arguments of the parties, the evidence presented, and the state of the record at that time, including: United States' Motion for Reasonable Expenses & Attorneys' Fees Associated with Motions to Compel, docket no. 290, filed February 13, 2018; Memorandum in Opposition to United States' Motion for Reasonable Expenses and Attorneys' Fees Associated with Motions to Compel, docket no. 313, filed February 27, 2018; Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Expenses and Fees, docket no. 317, filed March 1, 2018; and the documents cited to in footnotes 2 and 3 of the Fee Order.
3. See supra notes 1-2.
4. Docket no. 503, filed November 9, 2018.
5. Docket no. 480, filed October 23, 2018.
6. Docket no. 481, filed October 23, 2018.
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