Hammes Company Healthcare, LLC et al v. Tri-City Healthcare District et al

Filing 224

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice #204 Tri-City Healthcare District's Motion for Attorney Fees. Within seven (7) calendar days of the parties' concluding their settlement efforts, the parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/6/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

HAMMES COMPANY
HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company; HC TRICITY I, LLC, a Wisconsin limited
liability company,

14

Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Case No. 09-CV-2324 GPC (KSC)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TRI-CITY
HEALTHCARE DISTRICT’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
(ECF NO. 204)

v.
TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE
DISTRICT, a California public entity;
LARRY ANDERSON, an individual;
PAMELA SMITH, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

22
23
24

On January 22, 2014, Tri-City Healthcare District (“District”) filed a timely

25

motion for attorney fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and California

26

law. (ECF No. 204, “Motion.”) Thereafter, the parties jointly moved for, and were

27

granted, continuances of the briefing schedule and hearing date on the District’s

28

Motion. (ECF Nos. 213, 216, 223.) Currently, any response to the District’s Motion
[1]

09cv2324

1

is due on or before October 24, 2014, and the hearing on the District’s Motion is set

2

for November 14, 2014. (ECF No. 223.) On March 12, 2014, Hammes Company

3

Healthcare, LLC (“Hammes”) and HC Tri-City I, LLC (“HC Tri-City”) filed a notice

4

of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 218.) The Ninth Circuit docket, of which

5

this Court takes judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, indicates

6

that the appellate briefing schedule remains vacated pending the parties’ settlement

7

efforts. (9th Cir. Case No. 14-55389, ECF No. 9.)

8

“If an appeal on the merits of [a] case is taken, the court may rule on [a] claim

9

for [attorney] fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion

10

without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 advisory comm. note (1993 amendments); see

11

also Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 2014 WL 2872219, at *2 (S.D. Cal.

12

June 24, 2014) (“District courts have exercised their discretion to defer ruling on a

13

motion for attorneys’ fees, or to deny the motion without prejudice to being renewed

14

following disposition of the appeal. [citations].”)

15

On June 4, 2014, the parties indicated that, “[o]n June 2, 2014, the parties

16

participated in mediation and would like to continue their settlement negotiations.”

17

To date, the Court has received no update by the parties as to their settlement

18

negotiations, yet Hammes and HC Tri-City’s appeal remains pending. For purposes

19

of managing its docket, the Court will therefore deny the District’s Motion without

20

prejudice, subject to refiling at a more appropriate time. See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300

21

F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A district court has inherent power to control the

22

disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of

23

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).

24

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The District’s Motion, (ECF No. 204), is DENIED WITHOUT

25

1.

26

PREJUDICE;

27

2.

28

settlement efforts, the parties are directed to file a JOINT STATUS

Within seven (7) calendar days of the parties’ concluding their

[2]

09cv2324

1

REPORT indicating the outcome of their settlement efforts; and

2

3.

3

may renew its request for attorney fees following resolution of Hammes

4

and HC Tri-City’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

5

Should the parties’ settlement efforts be unsuccessful, the District

Dated: August 6, 2014
______________________________
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[3]

09cv2324