Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 2/28/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNAPSIS, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-01524 JF

ORDER DENYING IN PART 1

MOTION FOR COSTS AND

ATTORNEY’S FEES

[re. Docket No. 215]

On November 28, 2006, defendants and counter-claimants Evergreen Data Systems, Inc.,

Bruce McAllister, and Steven DeMartini (collectively, “Counter-Claimants”) moved to dismiss

their counterclaim against William Akel (“Akel”). The motion was granted on January 16, 2007. 

In response to Akel’s apparent desire to recover costs, the Court wrote that “if Akel seeks to

recover costs and/or attorney’s fees, he must do so by means of a noticed motion within thirty

days of the issuance of this order.” January 16, 2007 Order 3. On January 30, 2007, Akel moved

for attorney’s fees and costs. Counter-Claimants oppose the motion. Having reviewed the

motion, opposition, and reply, the Court concludes that the motion is appropriate for decision

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 227 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The counterclaims against Akel alleged (a) intentional interference with existing 2

contractual relationships (third counterclaim); (b) intentional interference with prospective

contractual relationships (fourth counterclaim); (c) negligent interference with prospective

contractual relations (fifth counterclaim); (d) inducing breach of contract (sixth counterclaim);

and (e) unfair competition (seventh counterclaim). 

2

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

(JFLC1)

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Akel states no basis for an award of attorney’s fees. None of the counterclaims brought

against Akel pertains to the Sales Agent Agreement or the Non-Disclosure Agreement at issue in 2

the action between Synapsis and the Counter-Claimants. Accordingly, neither of those

agreements provides a basis for an award of attorneys’ fees. Akel does not point to another

contract that might allow an award of attorney’s fees. The statutory provisions cited by Akel do

not provide a basis for such an award. Akel does make reference to the attorneys’ fees provision

of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, but the Copyright Act is not at issue in the counterclaims. 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 pertains to actions on a contract, and thus does not apply to the

counterclaims against Akel. Cal. Civ. Code § 2339 pertains to liability for the ratified acts of an

agent; it does not provide an independent basis for an award of attorney’s fees. Cal. Civ. Proc.

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 227 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.5 allows a trial court to order attorney’s fees incurred “as a 3

result of bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary

delay.” This statute does not provide a basis for an award of attorney’s fees to Akel for two

reasons. First, Akel offers no evidence that Counter-Claimants’ actions or tactics were

undertaken in bad faith, and second, “when fees are based upon misconduct by an attorney or

party in the litigation itself, rather than upon a matter of substantive law, the matter is

procedural,” and federal law applies. In re. Larry's Apartment, LLC, 249 F.3d 832, 838 (9th Cir.

2001). Accordingly, to the extent that Akel seeks attorney’s fees as part of an implied motion for

sanctions, that motion is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. However, while Akel refers to a

sanctions motion, he does not provide the Court with grounds on which to find that sanctions are

appropriate. 

 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7 allows sanctions for the filing of a frivolous pleading. 

4

However, it does not provide a basis for an award of attorney’s fees in this instance for the same

reasons that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.5 does not.

 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021 provides that attorney’s fees are to be granted when 5

provided for by statute or by agreement. As discussed above, neither basis supports an award of

attorney’s fees to Akel.

 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1032, 1033.5 govern the allowance of costs in state courts and 6

are not relevant to the instant motion.

 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1034 governs costs on appeal in the state court system and is not 7

relevant to the instant motion. 

3

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

(JFLC1)

Code §§ 128.5, 128.7, 1021, 1032, 1033.5, and 1034 do not grant Akel a substantive right to

3 4 5 6 7

attorneys’ fees. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and Civ. L.R. 54 govern the taxation of costs in this action. See

In re Merrill Lynch Relocation Management, Inc., 812 F.2d 1116, 1120 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987)

(noting in a diversity case that, “as a general proposition, the award of costs is governed by

federal law under Rule 54(d).”) (citing 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and

Procedure: Civil 2d § 2669 at 214 (1983)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) provides that “costs other

than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court

otherwise directs.” A prevailing party must serve and file a bill of costs within fourteen days of

the entry of judgment or of an “order under which costs may be claimed.” Civ. L.R. 54-1. If

Akel wishes to recover costs, he should serve and file a bill of costs within fourteen days of the

issuance of this order. Akel must abide by all applicable court rules and may not include

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 227 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Court having determined that Akel has no substantive right to attorneys’ fees under 8

any of the California statutes that he cites, there is no question whether such fees can be

recovered as costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. Cf. Kellems v. California CIO Council, 6 F.R.D.

358 (N.D.Cal. 1946) (holding that Court has discretion to allow attorney’s fees as costs in a libel

action heard under diversity jurisdiction where the California libel statute allows the recovery of

costs of $100 to cover attorney’s fees). 

 The Court concludes that the question whether Akel is a prevailing party for the 9

purpose of taxing costs under the federal rules is not adequately briefed to allow resolution at this

time. Accordingly, any objection may include an argument that Akel is not a prevailing party for

the purpose of the applicable rules. The Court notes that the Seventh Circuit has held that “a

voluntary dismissal with prejudice renders the opposing party a ‘prevailing party’ within the

meaning of Rule 54,” Mother and Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir. 2003), and that

the Ninth Circuit appears receptive to a similar view. See Zenith Ins. Co. v. Breslaw, 108 F.3d

205, 207 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (discussing voluntary dismissal of claims before trial and

noting that dismissal with prejudice is tantamount to a decision on the merits).

4

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

(JFLC1)

attorneys’ fees in his bill of costs. If Counter-Claimants object to the costs taxed by the clerk, 8

they should file their objections in accordance with Civ. L.R 54-2.9

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Akel’s motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

2. Akel shall file any bill of costs within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this

order.

3. The motion hearing scheduled for March 16, 2007 is vacated.

DATED: February 28, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 227 Filed 02/28/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Daniel C. DeCarlo decarlo@lbbslaw.com; kkim@lbbslaw.com; pink@lbbslaw.com;

creyes@lbbslaw.com

Manuel Albert Martinez Mmartinez@steinlubin.com, msaephan@steinlubin.com

Jonathan S. Pink pink@lbbslaw.com; creyes@lbbslaw.com

Michael Navid Radparvar radparvar@lbbslaw.com

Jeffrey F. Sax jsax@sswesq.com

William Shibly Akel wmakel@counterstrike.com 

H. Joseph Nourmand

H. Joseph Nourmand Law Offices

660 S. Figueroa Street

24th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 227 Filed 02/28/07 Page 5 of 5