Geo M. Martin Company et al v. Alliance Machine Systems International, LLC et al

Filing 383

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES RELATED TO TRIAL DELAY AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [denying 359 Motion for Attorney Fees]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GEO. M. MARTIN COMPANY, a California corporation, and THE MARTIN FAMILY TRUST ­ 1989, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE MACHINE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant. / ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES RELATED TO TRIAL DELAY AND VACATING HEARING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

No. C 07-00692 WHA

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

The original trial date in mid-2008 was continued until the autumn to allow counsel for plaintiffs to cure certain shortfalls in its inadequate disclosures and to allow for discovery thereon. The trial in fact occurred as re-scheduled. It is true that the Court stated, in granting the trial continuance, that it would do so on the condition that plaintiffs reimburse defendant for any incremental fees and expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the continuance. The Court made clear, however, that incremental meant incremental and did not mean any and all expenses whether or not they would have been incurred anyway. Defendant's pending motion for fees and expenses is so grossly overreaching that it will be denied in full and defendant will not be allowed a further opportunity to re-file a less greedy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

motion. Had defendant requested a number in the $30,000 to $40,000 range, it might have been allowed but defendant has gone beyond the pale and requested ten times that amount. The Court is thoroughly familiar with the case. It has a good sense of the actual degree of prejudice flowing from the short continuance and the actual degree of incremental burden reasonably incurred. The Court is most disappointed that defense counsel would overreach in this manner. The Court is in agreement with virtually every example cited by plaintiffs in their memorandum. The motion is DENIED in full and with prejudice to re-filing. The hearing set for January 29 is VACATED as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: December 15, 2008.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2