Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01029/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01029-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

1

 This statute permits a court to award “reasonable” attorneys’ fees to a defendant

debt collector in an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692

et seq., if the court finds that the action “was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of

harassment.”

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathy Grismore, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kenneth Eisen & Associates LTD 

and Mary Bertram, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1029-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant Kenneth Eisen & Associates Ltd.’s Motion

for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 59) and Plaintiff Kathy Grismore’s Motion for Relief from the

Judgment (Doc. # 68).

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

The Court previously found that Kenneth Eisen is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees

under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) (1998)1

 for the reasons stated on the record at a hearing held

on March 24, 2008. [Doc. ## 55-56.] Pursuant to that finding, Kenneth Eisen now seeks

Case 2:07-cv-01029-JAT Document 73 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 The total amount of fees Kenneth Eisen incurred in this case is $10,390.50.

However, because the Court had previously awarded fees in the amount of $1,320.00 to

Kenneth Eisen, this amount was deducted from the amount requested pursuant to the present

motion.

- 2 -

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $9,070.50.2

 In her motion for relief from the judgment,

which also serves as a response to the motion for attorneys’ fees, Grismore does not dispute

the reasonableness of this amount. The Court therefore will grant Kenneth Eisen’s motion

in the amount requested.

Motion for Relief from the Judgment

Grismore moves for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b). This motion was filed after Grismore appealed this Court’s final order to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals.

After an appeal is filed, a district court does not have jurisdiction to decide a Rule

60(b) motion unless “the movant follows a certain procedure, which is to ‘ask the district

court whether it wishes to entertain the motion, or to grant it, and then move [the circuit]

court, if appropriate, for remand of the case.’” Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 685 (9th

Cir. 2007) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 720 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Grismore did not follow this procedure before filing her Rule 60(b) motion. The Court

therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Kenneth Eisen & Associates Ltd.’s Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 59) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant Kenneth Eisen & Associates Ltd. in the amount

of $9,070.50.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from the Judgment

(Doc. # 68) is DENIED.

Case 2:07-cv-01029-JAT Document 73 Filed 06/25/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

DATED this 25th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01029-JAT Document 73 Filed 06/25/08 Page 3 of 3