Greenspun et al Stephens Media, LLC et al
Filing
112
ORDER Denying Defendants Stephens Media LLC, et al.'s 107 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and costs. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/3/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
BRIANL. GREENSPUN, et al.,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
10
Case No. 2:13-CV-1494 JCM (PAL)
ORDER
v.
STEPHENS MEDIA, LLC, et al.,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is defendants Stephens Media LLC, et al.’s motion for attorneys’
14
fees and costs. (Doc. # 107). Plaintiffs Brian L. Greenspun, et al. filed a response (doc. # 110)
15
and defendants filed a reply (doc. # 111).
16
I.
Background
17
The instant action stems from claims for equitable and injunctive relief based on various
18
antitrust claims. (See doc. # 1). On September 12, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to
19
voluntarily dismiss all causes of action against defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20
41(a)(2). (Doc. # 101). The parties’ agreed that the court should dismiss the action, because a
21
recent business transaction had rendered plaintiffs’ claims moot. The main point of contention
22
between the parties was whether the action should be dismissed with or without prejudice or
23
conditions. (See, e.g., doc. # 101).
24
Plaintiffs argued that the dismissal of the action without prejudice or conditions was
25
warranted, because they moved to voluntarily dismiss in a timely manner following the close of
26
the business transaction that rendered the claims moot. (See doc. # 101). Plaintiffs also asserted
27
that imposing a condition of attorneys’ costs and fees was not proper because the action was in the
28
early stages of litigation and defendants had not expended substantial resources in their defense.
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
Defendants argued that the court should condition the dismissal on plaintiffs’ payment of
2
defendants’ attorneys’ costs and fees, because defendants incurred substantial legal fees defending
3
against unripe and unfounded antitrust charges. (See doc. #102).
4
The court declined to condition the voluntary dismissal on plaintiffs’ payment of costs and
5
fees, but concluded that it was proper to afford defendants the opportunity to move for appropriate
6
fees. (Doc. # 106). Defendants filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees.
7
II.
Legal Standard
8
To protect defendants’ interests when a dismissal is without prejudice, a court can
9
condition a dismissal upon the payment of “appropriate costs and attorney fees.” Westlands Water
10
Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the “[i]mposition of costs and
11
fees as a condition for dismissing without prejudice is not mandatory.” Id.; accord. Stevedoring
12
Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Intern. B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, the Ninth Circuit
13
has held that “Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) in itself is not ‘specific statutory authority’ for the imposition
14
of sanctions against an attorney.” Heckethorn v. Sunan Corp., 992 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1993).
15
“Given the presumption that an attorney is generally not liable for fees unless that prospect
16
is spelled out, it would be incongruous to conclude from the broad language of Fed. R. Civ. P.
17
41(a)(2) that an attorney could be sanctioned by authority of this rule alone.” Id. at 242; see also
18
Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers v. Western Indus. Maintenance, Inc., 707 F.2d 425,
19
428 (9th Cir. 1983) ( “[A]bsent contractual or statutory authorization, a prevailing litigant
20
ordinarily may not collect attorneys’ fees.”). Thus, the district court must have an independent
21
basis to impose fees and costs as a condition of voluntary dismissal. Heckethorn, 922 F.2d at 242.
22
III.
Discussion
23
Defendants move for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),
24
54(d)(2), and local rule 54-16. Defendants assert that, though the court’s September 12, 2014,
25
order did not condition the voluntary dismissal on plaintiffs’ payment of fees and costs at the time
26
it was issued, that the court invited defendants to seek attorneys’ fees suggests that the court wanted
27
to review additional briefing before making a final determination. Therefore, defendants allege
28
that the court declined to condition the voluntary dismissal on plaintiffs’ payment of fees and costs
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
at the time of the order, but wished to have more time and additional briefing to consider post hoc
2
whether dismissal should be conditioned on costs and fees.
3
Defendants are incorrect. The parties previously briefed the issue of conditioning the
4
voluntary dismissal on plaintiffs’ payment of fees and costs. The court’s September 12, 2014,
5
order declined to condition the voluntary dismissal on plaintiffs’ payment of fees and costs. The
6
court merely provided defendants additional time beyond the fourteen days provided by Federal
7
Rule of Civil Procedure 54 in which to file their motion.
8
Defendants provide no basis for awarding fees or costs other than Rule 41(a)(2), which as
9
mentioned is not itself an authority for the imposition of attorney fees. Heckethorn, 922 F.2d at
10
242. Because defendants provide no statutory or contractual basis for the court to impose
11
attorneys’ fees, defendants’ motion will be denied.
12
Accordingly,
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants Stephens
14
Media LLC, et al.’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (doc. # 107) be, and the same hereby is,
15
DENIED.
16
DATED March 3, 2015.
17
18
19
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?