Tradesmen International, Inc. v. Professional Labor Support, LLC et al

Filing 132

ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge David G Bernthal on 11/20/13. Pending final resolution of Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants, the Court takes under advisement Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees 89 , Defendants' Mo tion To Supplement Record of Attorneys' Fees 119 , Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees 127 , and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time To Respond to Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fee s and Request for Hearing on Supplemental Motion 129 . The Court DENIES Defendants' Renewed Request for Hearing on Motion for Attorneys' Fees 118 and Defendants' Request for Hearing on Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees 128 . See written Order. (TC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 20 November, 2013 04:08:41 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Urbana Division

TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 10-2098

JOHN BLACK, TODD WALKER, RYAN
BOYER, and PROFESSIONAL LABOR
SUPPORT LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER
In May 2010, Plaintiff Tradesmen International, Inc., filed a complaint against
Defendants John Black, Todd Walker, Ryan Boyer, Professional Labor Support LLC, and Ryan
Ellis. Defendant Ellis subsequently filed for bankruptcy and the proceedings have been stayed as
to him. The remaining Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the Court
granted as to all counts except Count IV which the Court dismissed as moot (see Order, #85).
The Court then denied Defendants’ subsequent motion for attorney fees (see Order, #104).

Plaintiff appealed the Court’s order on summary judgment and Defendants appealed the
denial of attorney fees. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s grant of
summary judgment as to Count V. Tradesmen Int’l, Inc. v. Black, 724 F.3d 1004, 1015 (7th Cir.
2013). The court noted, however, that Plaintiff had never sought certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b); therefore, the order granting summary judgment was not a final
decision. The court concluded that, in the absence of a final judgment, “Tradesmen must wait to
appeal the other nine counts until its claims against Ellis are resolved.” Id. at 1011. Regarding
the denial of attorney fees, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the
question of whether Plaintiff had maintained the law suit in bad faith. Id. at 1017.

Following the ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on this Court’s order
regarding attorney fees, Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#89) was revived and
Defendants filed several other motions including Defendants’ Renewed Request for Hearing on
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#118), Defendants’ Motion To Supplement Record of Attorneys’
Fees (#119), Defendants’ Motion To Direct Entry of Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b) (#120),
Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#127), and Defendants’ Request for
Hearing on Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#128). In addition, Plaintiff filed its
Motion for Extension of Time To Respond to Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’
Fees and Request for Hearing on Supplemental Motion (#129).

After finding that there is no just reason to delay an appeal of its order on Defendants’
summary judgment motion, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion To Direct Entry of Final
Judgment Under Rule 54(b) (see Order #130) and directed entry of final judgment. As a
practical matter, it would be unwise and inefficient for the Court to rule now on the propriety of
awarding attorney fees in this case where the underlying substantive issues are still subject to
appeal.

Accordingly, pending the final resolution of Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants,
the Court takes under advisement Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#89), Defendants’
Motion To Supplement Record of Attorneys’ Fees (#119), Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees (#127), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time To Respond to
Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Request for Hearing on Supplemental
Motion (#129). The Court DENIES Defendants’ Renewed Request for Hearing on Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees (#118) and Defendants’ Request for Hearing on Supplemental Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees (#128).

ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2013.

s/DAVID G. BERNTHAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE