Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 744

ORDER by Judge Walker granting #729 Motion for Extension of Time to File; finding as moot #732 Motion to Shorten Time; granting #742 Motion for Extension of Time to File (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 744

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as ClerkRecorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his official capacity as RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No C 09-2292 VRW ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor move to enlarge time to file their motion for attorney fees and costs until thirty days after all appeals are final. Doc ##729, 742. The Governor, Doc Doc

Attorney General and Alameda County do not oppose the motion. ##735, 739, 741. #743. Proponents oppose any enlargement of time.

Under FRCP 54(d), a prevailing party must file its motion for attorney fees and costs not later than fourteen days after entry of judgment. motion. The court may, however, extend time to file the

FRCP 54(d)(2)(B); see Advisory Committee Notes to 1993

Amendments (noting that the court may permit claims for fees and costs to be filed after resolution of the appeals process). Proponents ask the court to retain the fourteen day deadline to provide the government defendants with an opportunity to consider their potential liability for fees and costs before the time to appeal has run. Doc #743 at 7-8. Proponents also seek to

ensure the court will have the opportunity to decide the motion for fees and costs while the memory of the case remains fresh. 8. Here, however, prudence dictates that the court wait to consider any motion for fees and costs until all appeals from the judgment are final. The Ninth Circuit is considering proponents' Id at

appeal on an expedited schedule, requiring the parties' full attention and potentially generating additional fees. Moreover,

the government defendants do not oppose an extension of time, suggesting that the amount of attorney fees sought by plaintiffs will not inform their decisions whether to appeal. Finally, the Any

case is unlikely to fade quickly from the court's memory. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

motion for fees and costs can be resolved fully and fairly after all appeals from the judgment are final. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to extend time is GRANTED. Doc ##729, 742. Plaintiffs' related motion to shorten Any motion for fees and costs

time is DENIED AS MOOT.

Doc #732.

pursuant to FRCP 54(d) shall be filed not later than thirty days after all appeals of the August 12, 2010 judgment, Doc #728, are final.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

3