Rille, et al v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al

Filing 263

ORDER denying 150 Motion for Attorney Fees without prejudice. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 9/27/12. (kpr) (The correct document was substituted as the attachment on 9/27/2012, per instructions from Chambers.) (thd).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ___________________________________ ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. NORMAN RILLE AND NEAL ) ROBERTS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFFS, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Civil Action 4:04CV00988-BRW DEFENDANT. ) ) ORDER An August 24, 2012 Order in United States of America ex rel Norman Rille, et al. v. Accenture, LLP, et al.1 stayed that case until the California litigation between Relators and their former counsel, lawyers at the firm Packard, Packard, & Johnson, was resolved. A copy of that Order is attached. As in Accenture, Relators in this case have a pending Motion for Award of Statutory Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1).2 Because it appears that Relators seek certain costs in this case while arguing in California that those same costs are unexplained or inappropriate, I will not consider Relators’ Motion until the California issues are resolved. Accordingly, Relators’ Motion (Doc. No. 150) is DENIED without prejudice. Relators may refile their motion upon resolution of the California case. The parties are directed to inform the Court of the resolution of the California case within two weeks of the fact. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2012. /s/Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 4:04-CV-00985-BRW, Doc. No. 722. 2 Doc. No. 150. 1

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?