Byrd v. Maricopa Cty Sher Of, et al
Filing
181
ORDER that Plaintiff's 174 Motion/Application for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 12/30/11. (ESL)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Charles Edward Byrd,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
vs.
12
No. CV04-2701-PHX-NVW
Joseph M. Arpaio et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion/Application for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 174).
15
This motion includes fees claimed by Fennemore Craig, P.C. (trial counsel) and by Mr.
16
Jarrett Green (counsel on appeal). Defendants and Fennemore Craig have since settled
17
their fees dispute, mooting that portion of the motion. (Doc. 179.) Mr. Green continues
18
to claim his fees.
19
In the Ninth Circuit, a party/attorney seeking fees incurred on appeal must first
20
move the appellate court for those fees. Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936, 948 (9th
21
Cir. 2005); Gametech Int’l, Inc. v. Trend Gaming Sys., L.L.C., 380 F. Supp. 2d 1084,
22
1093–94 (D. Ariz. 2005); Nader v. Brewer, No. CV-04-1699-PHX-FJM, 2009 WL
23
811450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2009). Such a motion was required within 14 days of
24
the mandate. Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6(a). The Ninth Circuit, in its discretion, could
25
then refer the motion to the district court. Id. 39-1.8.
26
This Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s docket shows that Byrd filed no request
27
for fees incurred on appeal, either as part of his briefs or separately. The mandate is also
28
silent about fees.
1
Apart from this procedural impediment, Mr. Green would be entitled to a
2
substantial award of fees. But this Court may not make such an award unless the Court
3
of Appeals modifies its mandate to allow consideration of such a request.
4
5
6
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion/Application for Attorneys’
Fees (Doc. 174) is DENIED.
Dated: December 30, 2011.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?