Jes Solar Company Limited v. Matinee Energy Incorporated ( 2020 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jes Solar Company Limited, et al., No. CV-12-00626-TUC-DCB 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Matinee Energy Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This Court entered summary judgment for Defendants, Tong-Soo Chung (Chung) 16 and S. Chin Kim (Kim) on July 3, 2019. Defendants filed motions for attorney fees and 17 costs, which were fully briefed by September 11, 2019. See (Reply (Doc. 513)). The Ninth 18 Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court’s grant of summary judgment, and the 19 Mandate issued on November 18, 2020. Subsequently, the Defendants sought and received 20 approval from the appellate court to have this Court rule on whether to grant them attorney 21 fees and costs related to the appeal. 22 Plaintiff’s object because they believe that this Court cannot rule on these pending 23 motions because the South Korean government needs to obtain the testimony of Paul 24 Jeong, first. As best as the Court understands the Plaintiffs’ argument, as made to the Ninth 25 Circuit Court of Appeals in the Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, “the 26 Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether the termination of this case in the U.S. 27 courts has any preclusive effect on Plaintiffs' contemplated legal actions in South Korea, 28 their home country.” (Response (Doc. 522) at 1.) “Stated more specifically, the dismissal 1 of this case in the absence of Paul Jeoung's direct testimony about his alleged co- 2 conspirators such as Defendants must be without prejudice to instituting legal proceedings 3 (both civil and criminal) in South Korean courts, where U.S.-South Korean judicial 4 assistance may be sought by South Korean authorities to procure testimony from Paul 5 Jeoung, who is highly likely to testify that Defendants knew the Matinee Project was a 6 fraudulent scheme while he was working with them.” Id. at 2. 7 This case has been dismissed with prejudice by Judgment (Doc. 491), which is by 8 definition the “final determination [on the merits of the case] of the rights of the parties in 9 an action or proceeding.” Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 935 P.2d 781, 791 (Cal.1997) 10 (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). In short, the argument the Plaintiffs 11 made to the appellate court and, assumedly, intend to make in the context of supplementing 12 the Responses to the Motions for Attorney Fees, is meritless because Judgment has been 13 entered and affirmed on appeal. That boat has sailed. 14 The Court sets a briefing schedule solely for the purpose of briefing the question of 15 whether to award Defendants attorney fees and costs for the appeal. 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Briefing Schedule to Supplement the Motions 18 for Attorney Fees (Doc. 521) is GRANTED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that supplemental briefs shall be filed solely1 for 20 the purpose of allowing the Defendants to add a request for appellate fees and costs, as 21 follows: by January 15, 2021, but not earlier than January 4, 2021 – Deadline for Mr. Chung 22 and Mr. Kim to file supplemental briefs in support of their respective pending applications 23 for attorneys’ fees limited to 10 pages or less, excluding supporting affidavits of counsel. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 Supplemental Briefs shall address entitlement to fees incurred after the currently pending 28 fee applications were filed and reasonableness of same. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRCiv. 7.2 shall apply for filing Responses || and Replies. The Plaintiffs’ Responses shall be limited to 10 pages or less and Replies, if || any, shall be limited to 7 pages. 4 Dated this 21st day of December, 2020. 5 6 ' Davj 8 United Ct Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-