Lansmont Corporation v. SPX Corporation et al
Filing
120
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING. Within 10 days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant all time records supporting the request for attorneys fees and costs. Within 20 days of the date time records are produced to Def endant, the parties shall conduct an in-person meet and confer session according to Civil Local Rule 54-5. The motion hearing is CONTINUED to 6/28/2013 at 9:00 a.m. On or before 6/6/2013, Plaintiff shall lodge with the court, but shall not file, a copy of all time records supporting the request for attorneys fees and costs unless a resolution is reached prior to that date. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/15/2013. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
LANSMONT CORPORATION,
11
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION
HEARING
Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
v.
[Docket Item No(s). 111]
SPX CORPORATION, et. al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16
/
On December 21, 2012, this court entered judgment in the above-entitled action in favor of
17
Plaintiff Lansmont Corporation (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendant SPX Corporation (“Defendant”).
18
See Docket Item No. 110. Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and
19
costs pursuant to California Civil Code § 1717. See Docket Item No. 111.
20
Civil Local Rule 54-5 applies to motions for attorney’s fees, including the one filed by
21
Plaintiff. Subsection (a) of the rule requires, inter alia, that “[c]ounsel for the respective parties
22
must meet and confer for the purpose of resolving all disputed issues relating to attorney’s fees
23
before making a motion for award of attorney’s fees.” Subsection (b) requires that a motion for
24
attorney’s fees include a “statement that counsel have met and conferred for the purpose of
25
attempting to resolve any disputes with respect to the motion or a statement that no conference was
26
held, with certification that the applying attorney made a good faith effort to arrange such a
27
conference, setting forth the reason the conference was not held.”
28
The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for compliance with Rule 54-5. It appears that
1
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING
1
Plaintiff’s counsel e-mailed Defendant’s counsel on January 3, 2013, in order to schedule a meeting,
2
did not receive a response, and then filed the instant motion the next day. It also appears that
3
counsel engaged in some discussions after the motion was filed, but that these discussions proved
4
unproductive because Plaintiff would not produce the time records supporting the request for
5
attorney’s fees and costs.
6
The court finds these efforts insufficient and will not consider Plaintiff’s motion until the
7
parties engage in further efforts at informal resolution. Accordingly, the court orders as follows:
8
1.
9
time records supporting the request for attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff may redact
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
the statements to account for privilege.
2.
12
13
Within 10 days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant all
Within 20 days of the date time records are produced to Defendant, the parties shall
conduct an in-person meet and confer session according to Civil Local Rule 54-5.
3.
The motion hearing currently scheduled for April 19, 2013, is CONTINUED to June
14
28, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. On or before June 6, 2013, Plaintiff shall lodge with the court,
15
but shall not file, a copy of all time records supporting the request for attorney’s fees
16
and costs unless a resolution is reached prior to that date.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: April 15, 2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?