Lee v. Arizona Board of Regents et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Attorneys' Fees without prejudice to refiling within 30 days of the Ninth Circuit's resolution of Plaintiff's appeal. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/7/2014.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Chunhye Lee,

No. CV-13-08256-PCT-DGC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

Arizona Board of Regents, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Chunhye Lee filed an amended complaint on November 25, 2013,

17

asserting claims against Defendants for retaliation and intimidation in employment.

18

Doc. 6. On February 11, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims as barred by res

19

judicata, but denied Defendants’ motions for sanctions. Defendants State of Arizona and

20

Arizona Board of Regents (“ABOR”) filed an application for attorney’s fees on

21

February 25, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Doc. 35. The motion has been fully

22

briefed. Docs. 39, 40.

23

After Defendants filed this motion, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth

24

Circuit. Doc. 37. “If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the [district] court may

25

rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion

26

without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the

27

appeal has been resolved.”

28

amendments); see also Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 220, 225-26 (2nd

Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), advisory committee’s note (1993

1

Cir. 2004). In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will not rule on Defendants’

2

motion until after the Ninth Circuit has ruled on Plaintiffs’ appeal.

3

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 35) is denied

4

without prejudice to re-filing within 30 days of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of

5

Plaintiff’s appeal.

6

Dated this 7th day of April, 2014.

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

-2-