Joseph et al vs. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police et al

Filing 133

ORDER that the defendants motion for attorney fees 121 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 10/18/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

RONALD NEAL JOSEPH, SR.,
et al.

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

2:09-cv-00966-HDM-LRL
ORDER

19
On September 8, 2011, the defendants filed a motion for
20
attorney fees (#121) and a bill of costs (#122).

On September 13,

21
2011, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with the U.S. Court
22
of Appeals (#123).

On September 26, 2011, plaintiffs opposed the

23
motion for attorney fees (#130) and objected to the bill of costs
24
(#131).

The time to reply has passed.

25
The court may decide the issue of attorney fees pending an
26
appeal.

Schneider v. Elko County Sheriff’s Dept., 17 F. Supp. 2d

1

1162 (D. Nev. 1998).

2

interest of justice, the motion (#121) should be denied without

3

prejudice to renew, should the defendants elect to renew the

4

motion, within thirty (30) days after a final disposition of

5

plaintiffs’ appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), Advisory Comm. Note

6

(1993 amendments) (“If an appeal on the merits of the case is

7

taken, the [district] court may rule on the claim for fees, may

8

defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without

9

prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for

10

filing after the appeal has been resolved.”); see also Madrid v.

11

Concho Elementary School Dist. No. 6 of Apache County, 2010 WL

12

2991562, *1 (D. Ariz. July 26, 2010)(Denying motion for attorney

13

fees without prejudice pending disposition of appeal); Sovereign

14

Gen. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5381813, at

15

*1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2008).

16

for attorney fees (#121) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

However, the court believes that, in the

Therefore, the defendants’ motion

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED this 18th day of October, 2011.

19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26

2