GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund et al v. Quad Graphics, Inc.

Filing 223

ORDER DENYING PARTIES MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 212 , 213 , 216 , 217 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Following the Courts entry of judgment (ECF No. 209), Defendant moved to recover their attorneys fees and non-taxable costs. Thereafter Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Given the nature of Defendants appeal, and upon consideration of the Parties Motions for Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Costs, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Parties Motions. If appropriate,Parties may renew their motions within 30 days of the entry of the Ninth Circuits Mandate on the pending appeal. (lc). Modified on 12/20/2019 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

GCIU-EMPLOYER RETIREMENT
Case No. 2:16-cv-00100-ODW (AFMx)
FUND AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE GCIU-EMPLOYER RETIREMENT
ORDER DENYING PARTIES’
FUND,
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Plaintiff,
AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS
v.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE [212], [213],
[216], [217]
QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Following the Court’s entry of judgment (ECF No. 209), Defendant moved to

20

recover their attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs. (See Def.’s Mot. for Att’y Fees,

21

ECF No. 212.)

22

attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs. (See Pls.’ Mot. for Atty’s Fees, ECF No. 216.)

23

Thereafter Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 221).1

Subsequently, Plaintiff moved to recover its entitled costs and

24

When an appeal on the merits is filed, a district court has discretion to rule on a

25

claim for fees, defer its ruling on the motion, or deny the motion without prejudice

26

and direct a new filing period for filing after the claim has been resolved. Fed. R. Civ.

27
28

After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the
matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

1

1

P. 54(d)(2), Advisory Committee Notes (1993 Amendment); Dufour v. Allen,

2

No. 2:14-cv-5616 CA (SSx), 2015 WL 12819170, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015)

3

(“[A] district court has the discretion to defer consideration of an attorneys’ fee

4

motion until resolution of the underlying case’s appeal.”). “Particularly if the claim

5

for fees involves substantial issues or is likely to be affected by the appellate decision,

6

the district court may prefer to defer consideration of the claim for fees until after the

7

appeal is resolved.”

8

Amendment). “District courts have exercised their discretion to defer ruling on a

9

motion for attorneys’ fees, or to deny the motion without prejudice to being renewed

Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, Advisory Committee Notes (1993

10

following disposition of the appeal.”

Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,

11

No. 12-cv-1067-BEN (JLB), 2014 WL 2872219, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2014).

12

Given the nature of Defendant’s appeal, and upon consideration of the Parties’

13

Motions for Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (ECF Nos. 212, 213, 216, 217), the

14

Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Parties’ Motions.

15

Parties may renew their motions within 30 days of the entry of the Ninth Circuit’s

16

Mandate on the pending appeal.

If appropriate,

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

December 20, 2019
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2