DeMartini, et al. v. DeMartini, et al.

Filing 428

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 07/16/19 DENYING 414 plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY P. DEMARTINI, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No.

2:14-cv-02722-JAM-CKD

Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL J. DEMARTINI, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Defendants.

16
17

On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Margie and Timothy Martini filed

18

a motion for attorney fees.

19

improper series of filings, pro se Defendants Michael and Renate

20

Martini, filed an “ex parte application/preliminary opposition”

21

to Plaintiffs’ motion and a “counter-motion for separation; for

22

extension of time.”

23

for Separation, ECF No. 421.

24

ECF No. 414.

In a procedurally-

See Prelim. Opp’n, ECF No. 420; Counter-mot.

Essentially, Defendants’ filings urged the Court to extend

25

the briefing schedule and allow separate briefing on Defendants’

26

procedural and substantive challenges to Plaintiffs’ motion.

27

generally Prelim. Mot. (raising procedural challenges to the

28

propriety of Plaintiffs’ motion); Counter-mot. for Separation at
1

See

1

3-5.

The Court denied this request by minute order, ECF No. 423,

2

and the parties proceeded with the original briefing schedule.

3

See Opp’n to Plfs.’ Mot. (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 425; Reply ISO Plfs.’

4

Mot. (“Reply”), ECF No. 427.1

5

the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees as

6

untimely.

For the reasons discussed below,

7
8

I.

9

BACKGROUND

The parties are familiar with the years of litigation

10

leading up to Plaintiffs’ requested apportionment of attorney

11

fees.

12

is the Court’s June 1, 2017 Order adopting in full Magistrate

13

Judge Delaney’s recommendation to (1) allow a second amended

14

complaint, and (2) sever and remand Plaintiffs’ Accounting and

15

Dissolution of Partnership claim to state court.

16

see also Findings and Recommendations at 4, ECF No. 214.

17

Court’s order narrowed the scope of Plaintiffs’ suit to two

18

claims: a breach of contract claim and a partition claim.

19

Pretrial Conference Order at 2, ECF No. 284.

20

For purposes of this motion, the relevant starting point

ECF No. 224;
The

See

In April 2018, the Court held a jury trial on Plaintiffs’

21

breach of contract claim.

The jury returned a verdict in favor

22

of Plaintiffs.

23

No. 347, and Defendants appealed, ECF No. 350.

24

the Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on the

25

partition claim, ordering the property at issue to be partitioned

ECF No. 335.

The Court entered a judgment, ECF
A month later,

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for July 16, 2019.
2
1

1

in kind according to Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ fifty percent

2

interest.

3

361.

4

land, so the Court appointed a referee to carry out its judgment.

5

See Minutes for September 19, 2018 hearing, ECF No. 388.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 15, ECF No.

The parties were unable to agree on how to partition the

6
7

II.

8
9

OPINION

Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees, filed nearly a year
after the Court’s resolution of the partition claim, is

10

untimely.

Under the local rules, “[m]otions for awards of

11

attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties pursuant to statute shall

12

be filed not later than twenty-eight (28) days after entry of

13

final judgment.”

14

“final judgment” in Local Rule 293(a) to have the same meaning

15

as “final decision” in 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

16

Bradshaw Bar Group, Inc., 735 Fed.Appx. 233, 234 (9th Cir.

17

2017).

18

the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to

19

do but execute the judgment.”

20

U.S. 229, 233 (1945).

21

district court disassociates itself from a case.”

22

Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009).

23

the fact that the district court retains jurisdiction over a

24

case does mean it has not issued a final judgment.

25

Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of Int'l Union of

26

Operating Engineers & Participating Employers, 571 U.S. 177,

27

183-84 (2014).

28

///

E.D. Cal. L. R. 293(a).

Courts interpret

See, e.g., Jones v.

Accordingly, a “final judgment” is a decision that “ends

Caitlin v. United States, 324

It is “typically” a decision “by which a

3

Mohawk
But

See Ray

1

Plaintiffs do not dispute that Local Rule 293 sets out the

2

relevant timeline for requesting attorney fees.

3

propose the Court’s May 30, 2018 Order did not amount to a final

4

judgment.

5

untimeliness, Plaintiffs argue:

6

Reply at 6.

Rather, they

In response to Defendants’ claims of

How can Defendants protest the fees incurred in this
action at the same time as claiming that this Court
has somehow disassociated itself from the case by
issuing a final judgment for partition? Not only does
the Court receive status reports from the Referee, the
Court has been unequivocal in its expression [of] how
partition will proceed, and that the case remains
open.

7
8
9
10
11

Id.

12

yet to be resolved.

13

merits of the suit and may therefore be resolved after a court

14

enters its final judgment.

15

at 185, 189-90.

16

nothing more than “execut[ing] the judgment.”

17

at 233.

18

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ argument identifies a claim that has
The issue of costs is “collateral” to the

See Ray Haluch Gravel Co., 571 U.S.

Moreover, the court-appointed referee is doing
Caitlin, 324 U.S.

After the Court remanded Plaintiffs’ accounting claim, two

19

claims remained.

A jury resolved the breach of contract claim

20

on April 18, 2018.

21

partition claim on May 30, 2018, there was nothing left for the

22

Court to adjudicate.

23

amounted to a final judgment.

24

fees was due 28 days later.

25

months after this deadline to file their motion.

26

therefore DENIED as untimely.

27

No. 2:10-cv-2839-GEB-CKD, 2013 WL 4854790, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

28

Sept. 11, 2013) (“Failure to comply with the local rule

Following the Court’s resolution of the

Consequently, the Court’s May 30 order
Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney
Instead, Plaintiffs waited eleven
The motion is

Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.,

4

1

governing the filing of motions for attorney’s fees is a reason

2

for denial of the motion.”).

3
4
5
6
7
8

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2019

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5