Internmatch, Inc. v. Nxtbigthing, LLC et al

Filing 155

ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES re 153 Request for Extension of Stay of Enforcement of Fee Award filed by Nxtbigthing, LLC, Chad Batterman, 147 Notice of Dismissal of Defendants' Interlocutory Appeal and Request for Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Award filed by Internmatch, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 16, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

INTERNMATCH, INC.,

Case No. 14-cv-05438-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEYS'
FEES

9
10

NXTBIGTHING, LLC, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 147, 153

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court previously awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff after finding that

13

Defendants wilfully spoliated evidence. See ECF No. 114. The Court later granted Plaintiff’s

14

application, awarding $67,377.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,944.95 in costs. ECF No. 140.

15

Because Defendants appealed the spoliation order, the Court also ordered that the payment of the

16

sum be stayed pending resolution of the appeal. Id. at 3. Plaintiff has notified the Court that the

17

Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and requests that Defendants make

18

payment within ten days. ECF No. 147. Defendants request the Court stay enforcement of the fee

19

award pending resolution of Defendants’ appeal of the Court’s forthcoming order on Plaintiffs’

20

motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 153.

21

The Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for partial judgment under Federal Rule

22

of Civil Procedure 54(b). That rule permits a court to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or

23

more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no

24

just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for

25

the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of

26

overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early

27

and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655

28

F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1981). Plaintiff has not demonstrated a pressing need for an early and

1

separate judgment as to the award of attorneys’ fees. Furthermore, based on the post-argument

2

discussion between the Court and parties at the hearing conducted on June 9, 2016, it would

3

appear that final judgment in this action will soon be entered.

4

The request for entry of a separate judgment regarding the award of attorneys’ fees is

5

denied. For administrative ease, the Court will set a schedule regarding the payment of fees and

6

costs related to the spoliation in the Court’s forthcoming written order granting Plaintiff’s motion

7

for partial summary judgment.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 16, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2