Drum Lodge, LLC v. Martel Construction, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge William B. Shubb on 6/4/2024 re 27 Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees: IT IS ORDERED that Martel's motion for award of attorneys' fees 27 be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice to renewal upon the final resolution of Drum Lodge's currently pending appeal 23 , 24 . (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

DRUM LODGE, LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:24-cv-00219 WBS JDP

v.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS’ FEES

MARTEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant.

17
----oo0oo----

18
19

On April 4, 2024, the court dismissed with prejudice

20

plaintiff Drum Lodge, LLC’s petition to vacate an arbitration

21

award in defendant Martel Construction, Inc.’s favor.

22

(Docket No. 20).)

23

notice of appeal, which appeal is currently pending.

24

Nos. 23, 24.)

25

incurred to successfully defend against Drum Lodge’s failed

26

petition to vacate.

This closed the case.

(Order

Drum Lodge then filed a
(Docket

Now, Martel moves for its attorneys’ fees

(Mot. (Docket No. 27-1).)

27

Courts have discretion to defer ruling on a motion for

28

attorney’s fees or to deny the motion without prejudice while an
1

1

appeal is pending.

2

note to 1993 amendment (“If an appeal on the merits of the case

3

is taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its

4

ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice,

5

directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing

6

after the appeal has been resolved.”); see also People for

7

Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metro.

8

Transit Auth., No. 221CV07662SSSMAAX, 2023 WL 6369702, at *2

9

(C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2023); Planet Aid, Inc. v. Reveal, Ctr. for

Fed R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) advisory committee’s

10

Investigative Reporting, No. 17-CV-03695-MMC, 2021 WL 4051420, at

11

*2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021); Stillwater Ltd. v. Basilotta, No.

12

2:16-CV-1895-SK, 2021 WL 7285989, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12,

13

2021); Freeman Inv. Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Frank Russell Co., No. 13-

14

CV-2856 JLS (RBB), 2017 WL 11420268, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9,

15

2017).

16

“[I]f the claim for fees involves substantial issues or

17

is likely to be affected by the appellate decision, the district

18

court may prefer to defer consideration of the claim for fees

19

until after the appeal is resolved.”

20

committee’s note to 1993 amendment; see also G.P.P., Inc. v.

21

Guardian Prot. Prod., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00321 SKO, 2018 WL 932087

22

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018) (citing same re: exercise of such

23

discretion).

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 advisory

Such is the case here: Drum Lodge’s pending appeal is

25

centrally related to the propriety of awarding attorneys’ fees in

26

relation to Drum Lodge’s petition to vacate the arbitration

27

award.

28

granted Martel’s motion to dismiss Drum Lodge’s petition, thereby

The order from which the pending appeal has been taken

2

1

deeming Martel the prevailing party.

2

court also reviewed and subsequently left undisturbed the

3

arbitration panel’s award of attorneys’ fees to Martel under the

4

“manifest disregard for the law” standard.

5

determinations are central to Martel’s instant motion for fees,

6

such that if either determination were to be reversed on appeal,

7

Martel’s current motion would likely be rendered moot.

8

addition, regardless of whichever party prevails on appeal,

9

additional fee motions are likely to follow.

(See generally Order.)

(Id.)

The

Both

In

10

Accordingly, in the interest of judicial efficiency and

11

pursuant to its discretion to do so, the court concludes that any

12

motion for attorneys’ fees is best adjudicated on the merits

13

following a final resolution of Drum Lodge’s appeal.1

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Martel’s motion for award

15

of attorneys’ fees (Docket No. 27) be, and the same hereby is,

16

DENIED without prejudice to renewal upon the final resolution of

17

///

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

See, e.g., Dufour v. Allen, No. 2:14–cv–5616 CAS (SSx),
2015 WL 12819170, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) (finding, after
“distributing a lengthy tentative order” and hearing oral
argument, that “the best course of action is to defer ruling on
the [motions for attorney’s fees] until the resolution of [the
plaintiff’s] appeal”); Harrell v. George, No. 2:11–cv–00253–MCE
DAD PS, 2012 WL 5906659, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012)
(deferring attorney’s fees motion by defendant who prevailed on
successful motion to strike pending appeal before the Ninth
Circuit); Sovereign Gen. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins.
Co., No. 2:05–cv–00389 MCE DAD, 2008 WL 5381813, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
Dec. 23, 2008) (denying motion for attorney’s fees without
prejudice to renewal following disposition of the matter on
appeal); Flores v. Emerich & Fike, No. 1:05–CV–0291 OWW DLB, 2007
WL 963282, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2007) (same); Lasic v.
Moreno, No. 2:05–cv–0161 MCE DAD, 2007 WL 4180655, at *1 (E.D.
Cal. Nov. 21, 2007) (same re: bill of costs).
1

28
3

1

Drum Lodge’s currently pending appeal (Docket Nos. 23, 24).

2
3
4

Dated:

June 4, 2024

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4