Levingston v. Earle et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying Defendants' 42 Motion to Reopen Case. ORDERED denying Defendants' 44 Renewed Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/4/2014.(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Lynnell Levingston,

No. CV-12-08165-PCT-JAT
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Victoria L. Earle, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ “Motion to Reopen” (Doc. 42) and

15

Defendants’ “Renewed Motion for Attorney’s Fees” (Doc. 44). The Court now rules on

16

the motions.

17

Defendants’ Motion to Reopen asks “for an Order reopening this case to consider

18

a motion to award Defendants their attorney’s fees herein.” (Doc. 42 at 1). The Court

19

entered judgment for Defendants on March 26, 2014. (Doc. 35). Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d) provides that a motion for attorneys’ fees must be “filed no

21

later than 14 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(i). The local

22

rules do not alter this time period. See LRCiv 54.2(b)(2) (“. . . the party seeking an award

23

of attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable expenses must file and serve a motion for

24

award of attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable expenses . . . within fourteen (14) days

25

of the entry of judgment in the action with respect to which the services were rendered.”).

26

Because Defendants failed to file their motion for attorneys’ fees within fourteen

27
28

1

days after the Court’s March 26, 2014 entry of judgment, their motion is untimely.1

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Reopen (Doc. 42).

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ Renewed Motion for

5
6

Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 44).
Dated this 4th day of September, 2014.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants apparently believe that Plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals precluded the Court’s judgment from being a final judgment. See (Doc. 43 at
1; Doc. 44 at 1). As only final judgments may be appealed, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this
belief is necessarily in error. Moreover, Plaintiff’s appeal did not divest the Court of its
power to award attorneys’ fees. See Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957
(9th Cir. 1983).
-2-