Flores v. Verdugo et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 72 Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees with leave to renew the motion after resolution of the appeal. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 11/6/08.(TLJ)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alberto Flores, Plaintiff, v. Phillip Verdugo, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIV-06-0679-PHX-SMM ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Dkt. 72). Defendants filed its motion after the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in Defendants' favor (Dkts. 69, 70). On September 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. 73). Plaintiff's appeal is currently pending. Because the Court cannot resolve Defendant's motion for attorneys fees while Plaintiff's appeal is pending, the Court will deny the motion with leave to refile after the appeal is concluded. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Dkt. 72) is DENIED with leave to renew the motion after resolution of the appeal. /// /// /// ///

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may reinstate its motion at the proper time by filing a Notice of Renewal of Motion for Attorneys' Fees; Defendant need not refile the motion itself. DATED this 6th day of November, 2008.

-2-