Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00874/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00874-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

1 

 No. C 04-0874 RS 

ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 04/19/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

RICHARD B. FOX, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GOOD SAMARITAN L.P., et al, 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 04-0874 RS 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

UNDER RULE 58(e) 

 Defendants have filed a motion seeking an order under Rule 58(e) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure that their pending motion for attorney fees will be given the effect of extending the 

time that any notice of appeal of the underlying judgment becomes effective. Defendants contend 

that such an order will prevent the undue burden to them of simultaneously litigating issues in this 

action both in this Court and in the Ninth Circuit, and will allow for a single appeal. Recognizing 

that this Court’s power to grant such relief under Rule 58(e) will be terminated should plaintiff file 

his notice appeal before such an order issues, defendants have moved under Civil Local Rule 6-3 to 

have the matter decided immediately. 

 While it would appear to be reasonable and efficient to proceed as defendants suggest, the 

Court will not preclude plaintiff from pursuing an immediate appeal of the underlying judgment if 

Case 5:04-cv-00874-RS Document 465 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

 No. C 04-0874 RS 

ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California 

he so chooses. Accordingly, defendants’ motion under Rule 58(e) is denied, without prejudice to 

seeking such relief by stipulation, in the event plaintiff agrees that judicial efficiency would be 

served thereby. This order disposes of docket nos. 459 and 462. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/19/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:04-cv-00874-RS Document 465 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 2