Kilduff v. MGM Resorts International

Filing 28

ORDER Denying 27 Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/26/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 RAYMOND DAVID KILDUFF, 2:13-CV-305 JCM (PAL) 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 13 v. 14 MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL d/b/a ARIA, 15 16 Defendant(s). 17 ORDER 18 Presently before the court is defendant MGM Resorts International’s motion for attorney fees. 19 (Doc. # 27). Plaintiff has not filed a response and the response date for filing a response has passed. 20 Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell inside a bar located in side the Aria Resort and Casino. 21 The plaintiff apparently misidentified the correct casino and sued this defendant, MGM, instead of 22 the Aria. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and this court granted the motion pursuant to local 23 rule 7-2(d) because plaintiff never responded to the motion to dismiss. 24 Defendant now seeks attorney fees in defending this lawsuit. A court may “award counsel 25 fees to a successful party when his opponent has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for 26 oppressive reasons.” United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 603 F.2d 100, 103 (9th Cir. 27 1979). Defendant’s state that plaintiff’s counsel acted in bad faith; however, the arguments are really 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 that plaintiff’s counsel is lazy and incompetent. The court does not find bad faith based on the 2 conduct in this litigation and declines to award fees. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED that defendant’s motion for attorney 5 6 fees (doc. # 27) be, and the same hereby, is DENIED. DATED June 26, 2013. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

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?