Thomas v. Bostwick

Filing 95

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying without prejudice 88 Motion for Attorney Fees. (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD TODD THOMAS,

Case No. 13-cv-02544-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES

9
10

JAMES S. BOSTWICK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 88

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court entered judgment for Plaintiff on September 3, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a

13

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on September 17, 2014. Dkt. 88. On October 1, 2014—the last day

14

by which Defendant could file a timely opposition—Defendant filed a Motion to Alter or Amend

15

Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 92. Defendant

16

also filed a “Notice of Stay” stating Defandant’s understanding that this latest motion should serve

17

to “presently relieve the parties from preparing and filing additional pleadings in connection with

18

Plaintiff[’s] . . . Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.” Dkt. 94.

19

The Court agrees that interests of judicial economy would not be served by litigating

20

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees while the judgment on which it relies is in doubt.

21

Depending on the outcome of Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff’s Motion may no longer be

22

warranted, or Plaintiff may wish to revise its contents. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s

23

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his Motion within fourteen

24

(14) days after the resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Alter Judgment.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2014
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge