Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01152/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01152-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Luis Leal, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chapman Chevrolet, L.L.C., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1152-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court is presented with plaintiff's (1) "Motion to Stay Filing of Objections to Bill

of Costs," (doc. 51), (2) "Motion for Clarification of Order Dated May 30, 2007" (doc. 52)

and (3) "Motion for Expedited Decision" (doc. 53). On May 30, 2007, we granted

defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 47), and judgment entered on the same day (doc. 48).

Defendant has since filed a bill of costs (doc. 49) and a motion for attorneys' fees (doc. 50).

Plaintiff's motion for clarification argues that "any request for attorney fees" and

"[a]ny decision on costs" should come "after the decision is made by the arbitrator." Motion

for Clarification at 2. We reject this contention. This case has been dismissed and judgment

has entered. Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees and its bill of costs are not premature

because they are in no way dependent upon the outcome of the parties' arbitration. The fact

that plaintiff contends that "[a]t all times, Plaintiff has agreed to arbitrate this matter," Motion

to Stay at 1, does not alter our conclusion. Plaintiff elected to litigate his claims in federal

court despite plaintiff's counsel's position that plaintiff's claims are governed by a valid and

Case 2:06-cv-01152-FJM Document 54 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

enforceable arbitration agreement. See May 30, 2007 Order at 2. By litigating his claims,

plaintiff and his counsel assumed the risks inherent to litigation. These risks include the

imposition of costs and fees. 

Plaintiff's motion to stay is labeled "Motion to Stay Filing of Objections to Bill of

Costs," but requests that we "stay a ruling on the Bill of Costs" until we decide plaintiff's

motion for clarification. Motion to Stay at 1. To the extent that plaintiff's motion to stay

requests an extension of the time in which to file objections to defendant's bill of costs, that

request is denied for the reasons stated above. Plaintiff's motion also includes substantive

objections to defendant's bill of costs. See Motion to Stay at 2. Although we have addressed

plaintiff's motion for clarification, plaintiff's objections are not ripe for adjudication because

defendant has not filed a response.

Plaintiff's motion for expedited decision, filed on the same date as plaintiff's motion

to stay and motion for clarification, requests that we "enter an expedited decision on

Plaintiff's motion for oral argument on Plaintiff's motion for clarification." Motion for

Expedited Decision at 1. However, plaintiff's motion for clarification does not request oral

argument. Because we have decided the motion for clarification, plaintiff's motion for

expedited decision is denied on grounds of mootness.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that adjudication of defendant's bill of costs and

defendant's motion for attorneys' fees, along with the corresponding deadlines, are in no way

stayed, or otherwise altered, by arbitration of the parties' disputes. FURTHERMORE, IT

IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's "Motion to Stay Filing of Objections to Bill of Costs"

(doc. 51) and plaintiff's "Motion for Expedited Decision" (doc. 53). 

DATED this 19th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01152-FJM Document 54 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 2