Young et al v. Pleasant Valley School District et al

Filing 331

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 328 Motion for Attorney Fees and brief in support 329 are STRICKEN. Pltfs are directed that they may not file a motion for atty's fees that does not comply with this Court's 10/25/11 scheduling order without having previously been granted leave to do so by the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on April 30, 2012. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA YOUNG, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-00854
(Chief Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
(Doc. No. 328.) The Court denied an identical motion on December 2, 2011. (Doc. No. 295.)
Because the motion and brief in support are duplicative of a motion and brief that this Court has
previously denied, the Court will strike the motion and brief in support.
The Court presided over a jury trial in this matter from August 22, 2011, until August 26,
2011. On August 26, 2011, the jury returned a verdict against Plaintiffs Patricia Young and
William Young on all claims and in favor of Plaintiff Meagan Young as to claims raised against
Defendant Pleasant Valley School District and Defendant Bruce Smith. (Doc. No. 280.) The
Court entered judgment on that date. (Doc. No. 284.) On September 22, 2011, Defendants filed
a motion to alter judgment and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (Doc. Nos.
288, 289.) The parties then entered into an extended period of briefing on the motions, which to
this date has not concluded.1
In anticipation of further protracted litigation over Defendants’ post-trial motions,

1

Provided that no further motions for extension of time are filed, it is anticipated that the
motions will become ripe in early May 2012.
1

Plaintiffs filed a motion on October 7, 2011, in which they “request[ed] this Court’s permission
to file their motion for attorney[’s] fees and bill of costs [fourteen] days after all post-trial
motions are decided.” (Doc. No. 291.) In support, Plaintiffs noted that they would “be required
to spend time fighting off” the post-trial motions and that the calculation of attorney’s fees
would be far easier if done in one motion rather than in a motion followed by a number of
supplements. (Id. ¶ 1.) The Court, recognizing the obvious sensibility of Plaintiffs’ motion,
granted the motion on October 25, 2011. (Doc. No. 294.)
While the motion for an extension of time to file the motion for attorney’s fees was
pending, Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney’s fees.2 (Doc. No. 292.) The Court considered the
motion and brief in support. However, the Court was persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that
addressing the attorney’s fees and costs piecemeal would be inefficient and counter productive.
Accordingly, after the Court granted the motion for an extension of time to file the motion for
attorney’s fees until fourteen days after the Court had decided Defendants’ post-trial motions, the
Court denied the October 12, 2011 motion for attorney’s fees without prejudice. (Doc. No. 295.)
More than four months later, on the same day that Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition
to Defendants’ post-trial motions, Plaintiffs filed a second motion for attorney’s fees and a brief
in support. (Doc. Nos. 328, 329.) The motion and brief in support are nearly identical to the
motions the Court had already denied without prejudice in light of Plaintiffs’ motion for an

2

The motion for an extension of time was filed on Friday, October 7, 2011. (Doc. No.
291.) The Court had previously granted Plaintiffs until Wednesday October 12, 2011. (Doc. No.
285.) Because the Court was unavailable to rule on the motion for an extension of time prior to
the date on which the motion was due, Plaintiffs prudently filed a motion on the original due
date.
2

extension of time.3 Plaintiffs’ motion and brief in support is devoid of any argument justifying
this Court voiding the scheduling order, which Plaintiffs themselves had requested.
ACCORDINGLY, on this 30th day of April 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and brief in support (Doc. No. 328, 329) are STRICKEN.
Plaintiffs are directed that they may not file a motion for attorney’s fees that does not comply
with this Court’s October 25, 2011 scheduling order (Doc. No. 294) without having previously
been granted leave to do so by the Court.
S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

3

The sole distinction is a footnote in the motion in which Plaintiffs acknowledge that the
motion is identical to the motion previously denied based on Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension
of time.
3