Keppel Properties, LLC v. Resurgam Equity Investments, LLC
Filing
43
ORDER denying ECF No. 41 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 11/07/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEPPEL PROPERTIES, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
RESURGAM EQUITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, )
)
Defendant.
)
)
_________________________________ )
3:15-cv-00165-HDM-VPC
ORDER
16
Before the court is plaintiff’s renewed motion for attorneys’
17
fees (ECF No. 41), and defendant’s opposition (ECF No. 42).
18
Plaintiff did not file a reply.
19
On November 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for contempt
20
(ECF No. 12) and a motion for attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 13).
On May
21
24, 2017, this court issued a preliminary order of contempt and
22
made a preliminary finding that because the award was compensatory
23
in nature, it was not subject to attorneys’ fees and costs at that
24
time.
(See ECF No. 38.)
On August 23, 2017, the court held a
25
final hearing on the motions for contempt and for attorneys’ fees.
26
The court converted the preliminary order of contempt to a final
27
order and denied plaintiff’s original motion for attorneys’ fees.
28
1
1
(See ECF No. 40.)
2
granted plaintiff leave to file a renewed motion for attorney’s
3
fees, which is now before this court.
4
However, at the request of plaintiff, the court
Having reviewed plaintiff’s renewed motion for attorneys’ fees
5
(ECF No. 41), the court finds that the motion does not contain any
6
additional facts or legal analysis that the court did not
7
previously consider when denying the prior motion for attorneys’
8
fees.
9
10
Accordingly, plaintiff’s renewed motion for attorneys’ fees
(ECF No. 41) is DENIED.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
DATED: This 7th day of November, 2017.
13
14
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?