Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00568/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00568-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD YOCUM, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCKWELL MEDICAL

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1-

25, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-0568-GPC-MDD

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

(ECF NO. 85)

On April 30, 2013, the Court granted Rockwell Medical Technologies, Inc.’s

(“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment as to each of Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF

No. 83.) Thereafter, on May 22, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for attorney fees and

costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. (ECF No. 85.) The Court finds

Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs suitable for disposition without oral

argument. See CivLR 7.1.d.1.

Defendant asserts that it served a Rule 68 offer of judgment on Plaintiff that

Plaintiff did not accept. Defendant argues it is therefore entitled to attorney fees and

costs totaling $107,614.15.

In response, Plaintiff argues Rule 68 does not permit a prevailing defendant to

recover costs. (ECF No. 94.)

3:12-cv-0568-GPC-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-00568-GPC-MDD Document 98 Filed 09/06/13 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

In reply, Defendant concedes that it may not recover costs under Rule 68, but

that, instead, the Court should award it attorney fees and costs under Rule 54. 

Defendant asserts that, under Rule 54, it is entitled to costs as the prevailing party and

that it is entitled to attorney fees pursuant to California Labor Code section 210, under

which Plaintiff asserted his second, third, and fourth causes of action. (ECF No. 97.)

First, the Court agrees that Defendant may not recover costs or attorney fees

under Rule 68. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d

1006, 1035 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he Supreme Court held that Rule 68 ‘applies only to

offers made by the defendant and only to judgment obtained by the plaintiff,’ and

‘therefore is simply inapplicable [when] it was the defendant that obtained the

judgment.’” (quoting Delta Airlines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 352 (1981))).

Secondly, the Court cannot properly consider Defendant’s Rule 54 argument

because Defendant makes this argument for the first time in its Reply. See Graves v.

Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]rguments raised for the first time in

a reply brief are waived.”). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees and

Costs is DENIED. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion, currently set for September

13, 2013, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

2 3:12-cv-0568-GPC-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-00568-GPC-MDD Document 98 Filed 09/06/13 Page 2 of 2