Duarte v. Stockton City ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO DUARTE and No. 2:19-cv-00007-MCE-CKD ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 CITY OF STOCKTON, STOCKTON 15 POLICE DEPARTRMENT, ERIC JONES, KEVIN JAYE HACHLER 16 (1641); ERIC B. HOWARD (2448); MICHAEL GANDY (2858); CONNER 17 NELSON (2613); SGT. UNDERWOOD, and DOES 1-100, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 By Memorandum and Order filed October 22, 2001 (ECF No. 73), this Court 22 granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants in this matter. 23 As the prevailing party in this litigation, Defendants now seek attorney’s fees and costs in 24 the amount of $136,016.08 against Plaintiff Francisco Duarte1 in accordance with the 25 provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)2 and Eastern District Local Rules 292 26 1 The remaining Plaintiff, Alejandro Gutierrez, settled with Defendants following judgment by waiving his right to appeal in exchange for a waiver of any costs or fees pursued against him. 27 2 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 28 otherwise indicated. 1 and 293. Defendants further assert that attorney’s fees are authorized by 42 U.S.C. 2 § 1988 because Plaintiffs’ lawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. 3 Defendants’ request is properly before the Court inasmuch as the litigation here has 4 been resolved in its entirety. 5 On November 13, 2021, however, Plaintiff Duarte filed a Notice of Appeal from 6 the judgment entered against him on October 22, 2021. Defendants’ Motion for 7 Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 76) was filed two days later, on November 15, 8 2021, despite that appeal. In addition to opposing Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff Duarte 9 also filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 on December 25, 2021 (ECF 10 No. 82). That Motion asserts that Defendants’ claim for attorney’s fees has no legal 11 merit and accordingly entitles Plaintiff Duarte to monetary sanctions for having to oppose 12 Defendants’ Motion. 13 This Court may defer its ruling on attorney’s fees and costs when an appeal on 14 the merits is pending. See 1993 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 54(d) (“if an appeal 15 on the merits of the case is taken, the [district] court may rule on the claim for fees, may 16 defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice directing under 17 subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved”); see 18 also Dumas v. New United Motor Mfg. Inc., No. C 05-4702 PJH, 2007 WL 1880377 at *2 19 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2007); Castillo-Antonio v. Iqbal, No. 14-cv-03316-KAW, 2017 WL 20 1113300 at *5 (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2017). 21 Depending on its outcome, Plaintiff Duarte’s Appeal may render either 22 Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 76) or Plaintiff Duarte’s 23 Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 82) moot. Accordingly, given the pendency of that 24 appeal, and in exercising its discretion under the circumstances presented herein, the 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 | Court DENIES' both motions at this juncture, without prejudice to being renewed 2 | following disposition of this matter upon appeal. 3 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 4 | Dated: May 12, 2022 <7 ° hi rfl ASX, Xe: ° SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 28 submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).