Donges v. USAA Federal Savings Bank ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 William R Donges, et al., No. CV-18-00093-TUC-RM 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 USAA Federal Savings Bank, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On April 30, 2019, this Court granted summary judgment to Defendant USAA 16 Federal Savings Bank in the above-entitled action. (Doc. 83.) The Clerk entered 17 judgment in favor of Defendant on May 9, 2019. (Doc. 85.) This Court later awarded 18 Defendant $112,256.50 in attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 109.) 19 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s grant of summary 20 judgment to Defendant and issued a formal mandate pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal 21 Rules of Appellate Procedure. (Doc. 113.) The Ninth Circuit’s mandate taxes costs 22 against Plaintiff/Appellant in the amount of $480.30. (Id.) The Ninth Circuit later 23 awarded Defendant/Appellee $27,059.00 in attorneys’ fees, specifying that its attorneys’ 24 fees order amends its mandate. (Doc. 114.) 25 Currently pending before this Court are Defendant’s Motion for Entry of 26 Judgment (Doc. 115) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel USAA to Produce Payoff 27 Demand (Doc. 116). Defendant responded in opposition to the Motion to Compel (Doc. 28 117), but Plaintiffs did not respond to the Motion for Entry of Judgment. 1 I. Motion for Entry of Judgment 2 Defendant asks this Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs in 3 the amount of $139,795.80, reflecting the $112,256.50 in attorneys’ fees awarded by this 4 Court, the $27,059.00 in attorneys’ fees awarded by the Ninth Circuit, and the $480.30 in 5 costs taxed by the Ninth Circuit. 6 “A party may request that judgment be set out in a separate document as required 7 by Rule 58(a) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d). Rule 8 58(a)(3) states that “[e]very judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a 9 separate document,” but that “a separate document is not required for an order disposing 10 of a motion . . . for attorney’s fees under Rule 54 [of the Federal Rules of Civil 11 Procedure.]” 12 Defendant has not cited any authority indicating it is proper for this Court to 13 include the Ninth Circuit’s awards of fees and costs in a judgment issued by this Court.1 14 Furthermore, Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees was filed pursuant to Rule 54 (see 15 Doc. 86), and thus Rule 58(a)(3) does not require a separate judgment for this Court’s 16 order disposing of the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Plaintiffs are obligated to pay 17 attorneys’ fees and costs in the amounts awarded by this Court and the Ninth Circuit; 18 Defendant does not need a separate judgment from this Court to collect on its costs and 19 fee awards. 20 The Court does not need to enter a separate judgment on its attorneys’ fees order, 21 and it declines to do so. See United States v. Business Recovery Servs., LLC, No. CV 22 11–0390–PHX–JAT, 2012 WL 3064253, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 26, 2012) (declining to 23 enter a separate judgment on attorneys’ fees order). 24 . . . . 25 1 Certain costs on appeal are taxable in the district court rather than the circuit court, see 26 Fed. R. App. P. 39(e), and a party may move to transfer consideration of attorneys’ fees on appeal to the district court, see 9th Cir. R. 39-1.8. Neither Fed. R. App. P. 39(e) nor 27 9th Cir. R. 39-1.8 is applicable here; the circuit clerk taxed costs on appeal, and the Ninth Circuit awarded attorneys’ fees on appeal. As discussed above, the award of costs is 28 included in the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, and the Ninth Circuit’s Order awarding attorneys’ fees specifies that it amends the mandate. Il. Motion to Compel 2 Plaintiffs aver that on October 28, 2020, they submitted a payoff demand statement to Defendant, seeking to determine the exact amount required to settle the outstanding liens on the property at issue in this litigation. (Doc. 116 at 1-2.) Plaintiffs 5 || further aver that Defendant failed to respond to their request, and they ask this Court to 6 || require Defendant to issue a payoff demand statement pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-715. (dd. at 2.) 8 Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be dismissed because this case is 9|| closed, the Motion seeks relief under state law for conduct that is not at issue in this case, || and Plaintiff already has the information he seeks. (Doc. 117 at 1-2.) Defendant further 11 || avers that it has no record of Plaintiffs’ request for a payoff demand statement. (/d. at 2.) 12 The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs have not shown that this Court is 13 || authorized to compel Defendant to provide a payoff demand statement pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-715, particularly given the fact that this case has been fully adjudicated and is 15} closed. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel will be denied. 16 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. 115) is 17 || denied as unnecessary pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3). 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 116) is denied. 20 Dated this 12th day of April, 2021. 21 22 23 — 4p □ Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 25 United States District □□□□□ 26 27 28 -3-