Weco Supply Company, Inc. v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

Filing 83

ORDER regarding Defendant's 82 Request for Clarification, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/11/2013. (Figueroa, O)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

WECO SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., a
California corporation

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
)
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
)
____________________________________)

1:10-CV-00171 AWI BAM
ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
FOR CLARIFICATION
(Doc. No. 82)

13
14
On January 3, 2013, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant and Cross-Claimant
15
Sherwin-Williams’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees. See Court’s Docket, Doc. No. 81. Sherwin16
Williams’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees requested both attorney’s fees and expert fees under
17
California Civil Code § 3426.4. See id., Doc. No. 74. Sherwin-Williams now seeks clarification
18
of the Court’s ruling on the requested $13,361.50 in expert fees, and requests a supplemental
19
order awarding Sherwin-Williams the expert fees. See id., Doc. No. 82. Finding that there was
20
no showing of subjective bad faith, as required under § 3426.4, the Court’s Order expressly
21
stated, “[a]ccordingly, Sherwin-Williams’ motion for attorneys’ fees and expert fees pursuant to
22
California Civil Code § 3426.4 is denied.” See id., Doc. No. 81, 6:3-5. Thus, no clarification or
23
modification of the Court’s Order is necessary. Sherwin-Williams’ request for expert fees
24
remains DENIED.
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
0m8i78

January 11, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2