Lucas et al v. Camacho et al

Filing 82

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 63 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 65 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 68 Motion for trial. Joint Status Report due by 10/28/2011. (TG; cc mailed to pro se parties)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al.,
6

Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

v.
ORDER

JOE CAMACHO, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

CASE NO. C11-5350BHS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Joe Camacho, Deborah

12

Camacho, and Angela Stephenson’s (“Camacho Defendants”) request for fees (Dkt. 63),
13
14
15
16
17

Defendants George and Lori Parker’s (“Parkers”) request for fees (Dkt. 65), and Plaintiffs
Chassidy Lucas, Bianca Lucas, and CB Stormwater’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for trial (Dkt.
68). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in support of the requests and motion and the
remainder of the file.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18
19
20

On May 5, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging patent infringement by both
the Camacho Defendants and the Parkers. Dkt. 1.

21

On July 25, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. Dkt. 34. On August 1,

22

2011, the Camacho Defendants responded. Dkt. 40. On August 2, 2011, the Parkers

23

responded. Dkt. 42. On September 8, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, awarded

24

Defendants reasonable fees in responding to the motion, and requested briefing on the

25

amount of such fees. Dkt. 60.

26
27
28
ORDER - 1

1

On September 13, 2011, the Camacho Defendants filed a brief in support of their

2

fees. Dkt. 62. On September 19, 2011, the Parkers filed a brief in support of their fees.

3

Dkt. 65.

4
5
6

On September 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for trial. Dkt. 68. On September
28, 2011, the Camacho Defendants responded. Dkt. 70. On September 29, 2011, the
Parkers responded. Dkt. 73.

7
8

II. DISCUSSION
A.

Fees

9

In this case, the Court awarded Defendants reasonable fees in responding to
10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs’ premature motion to compel. The Camacho Defendants have requested $300
in fees. The Court finds that this amount is reasonable. Therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered
to pay the Camacho Defendants $300 within a reasonable time.

14

The Parkers also request fees for the time expended representing themselves pro

15

se. The Parkers assert that they expended valuable time and resources in responding to

16

Plaintiffs’ motion and request to be reimbursed at a rate that the Court deems reasonable.

17

First, the Parkers’ response was very similar to the Camacho Defendants’ response, which

18

was prepared by an attorney and submitted one day prior to the Parkers’ response. The

19

Court is not persuaded that the Parkers expended valuable time or resources drafting their

20

response. Second, the Parkers have failed to document their time or submit such

21

documentation for the Court’s consideration. Therefore, the Court denies the Parkers’

22

request for fees because they have failed to provide evidence of an appropriate

23

reimbursement amount.

24
25
26

B.

Motion for Trial
Although Plaintiffs’ motion is somewhat confusing, it appears that Plaintiffs have

submitted a motion to set a trial date instead of participating in the initial conference and

27

submitting a Joint Status Report. See Dkt. 68. Plaintiffs are informed that it is their
28
ORDER - 2

1

responsibility to schedule an initial conference and submit a Joint Status Report. See Dkt.

2

3. Failure to do either of these tasks may result in dismissal of the action for failure to

3

comply with the Court’s explicit order. In any event, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion

4

to set a trial date and orders Plaintiffs to submit a Joint Status Report that is signed by all

5

parties no later than October 28, 2011. Failure to submit such a report may result in

6

dismissal unless good cause is shown for such failure.

7
8
9
10
11

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Camacho Defendants’ request for fees
(Dkt. 63) is GRANTED, the Parkers’ request for fees (Dkt. 65) is DENIED, and
Plaintiffs’ motion for trial request (Dkt. 68) is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file a Joint
Status Report signed by all parties no later than October 28, 2011.

12

DATED this 17th day of October, 2011.
13
14
15

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 3