Azpilcueta v. The State of Nevada, ex. rel. Transportation Authority et al

Filing 143

ORDER denying 119 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/14/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LG)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

***
)
DAIANA AZPILCUETA, individually and on )
behalf of CAL-NEVA TRANSPORT & TOW, )
INC., a Nevada corporation,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE STATE OF NEVADA, ex. rel.
)
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a
)
division of the Department of Business and
)
Industry, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
)
SAFETY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
)
GENERAL, and CITY OF CARSON CITY, a )
municipality of the State of Nevada; STEVEN )
SCHUETTE, in both his professional and
)
individual capacity; STEVE ALBERTSEN, in )
both his professional and individual capacity; )
CHARLES TOLOTTI, in both his professional )
and individual capacity; DEAN BUELL, in
)
both his professional and individual capacity; )
JOHN MCGLAMERY, in both his
)
professional and individual capacity;
)
WILLIAM PROWSE, in both his professional )
and individual capacity; KEVIN MCCOY, in )
both his professional and individual capacity; )
The PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION dba )
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE )
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; GALE
)
LUNDEEN, an individual; MARCOS BRITO, )
an individual; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:09-CV-00593-LRH-VPC
ORDER

1

Before the court is Defendant Gale Lundeen’s Application for Costs (#1191), along with

2

Plaintiffs’ opposition (#123). No reply was filed. The motion follows this court’s order (#105)

3

granting Lundeen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing all claims against

4

Lundeen.

5

Although styled as an application for costs, Defendant’s motion is actually a motion for

6

attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). That provision does not authorize an award of

7

attorney’s fees in this case, however, as only common law causes of action for conspiracy and

8

intentional infliction of emotional distress were alleged against Defendant. See id. Moreover, even

9

if fees were recoverable, Defendant’s perfunctory motion fails to comply with Local Rule 54-16.

10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Gale Lundeen’s Application for Costs
(#119) is DENIED.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED this 14th day of September, 2011.

14
15
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

2