Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00091/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00091-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shawn D. Katz, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Susan R. Chalker, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 03-91-TUC-FRZ

ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

Pending before the Court is Defendant TIAA-CREF's Motion for Award of Attorneys'

Fees and Defendants Leonard Karp, Annette Everlove and Susan Chalker's ("Chalker

Defendants") Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees. United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer

C. Guerin issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motions be granted

and Defendants be awarded the full amount of attorneys’ fees requested. Plaintiffs’ filed

objections to the Report and Recommendation. Although Defendant TIAA-CREF was

awarded the full amount of attorneys’ fees requested, it filed a partial objection to the Report

and Recommendation; the Court will deny TIAA-CREF’s objection as moot.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the

unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp.,

Case 4:03-cv-00091-FRZ Document 163 Filed 10/26/07 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

1

As the Report and Recommendation throughly discusses the relevant facts and law, the

Court will not repeat that discussion. Rather, the relevant facts and law will be addressed only to

the extent necessary to resolve the specific objections filed by the parties.

2

The Court notes that Plaintiffs have requested (Doc. #156) that the Court defer ruling on the

motions for attorneys’ fees until such time as the appeal on the merits with the Ninth Circuit is

resolved. Defendants have opposed this request as this litigation has spanned more than a decade,

a ruling on the motions for attorneys fees will bring this case closer to a conclusion, and it is more

efficient to rule on the motions for attorneys’ fees at this point in time; to the extent Plaintiffs’

appeal the ruling on the motions for attorneys’ fees, this appeal can be consolidated and decided with

the appeal on the merits. There is no question that the Court has jurisdiction to rule on motions for

attorneys’ fees while an appeal is pending. See Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d

220, 225 (2nd Cir. 2004)(“. . . notwithstanding a pending appeal, a district court retains residual

jurisdiction over collateral matters, including claims for attorneys' fees.”); Lancaster v. Indep. Sch.

Dist. No. 5, 149 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir.1998)(“ . . . the district court retains jurisdiction over

collateral matters not involved in the appeal . . . Attorney's fees awards are collateral matters over

which the district court retains jurisdiction.”); League of Women Voters of California v. FCC, 751

F.2d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 1985)(“Although a notice of appeal has been filed, a district court . . . retains

jurisdiction to rule upon a request for attorney fees.”). In the interest of finality and efficiency,

Plaintiffs’ request to defer ruling on the motions for attorneys’ fees is denied. The Court also notes

that Defendants summarily requested (Doc. #’s 141, 142) that Plaintiffs be required to post a bond

on appeal; the request is denied.

- 2 -

170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204

(D. Or. 1998).

III. DISCUSSION1

A. Objections

A review of the documents filed by Plaintiffs purportedly objecting to the Report and

Recommendation shows that Plaintiffs did not file any specific objections to the Report and

Recommendation. As such, there are no specific objections for the Court to address. Rather,

Plaintiffs summarily rely on the previously filed responses to the motions for attorneys’ fees

at issue. As the Report and Recommendation throughly and correctly discussed the relevant

facts and law and properly granted the motions for attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs’ purported

objections to the Report and Recommendation are denied.2

As mentioned above, Defendant TIAA-CREF filed a partial objection to the Report and

Recommendation. While the Report and Recommendation found that TIAA-CREF was not

entitled to an award of fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, the Report and Recommendation

Case 4:03-cv-00091-FRZ Document 163 Filed 10/26/07 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 -

nonetheless found that TIAA-CREF was entitled to all of its requested attorneys’ fees

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1927. See Report and Recommendation at 5. TIAA-CREF’s only

objection is that it is entitled to fees pursuant to both 42 U.S.C. §1988 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.

As the Court is adopting the Report and Recommendation, and TIAA-CREF is receiving all

of its requested fees, TIAA-CREF’s objection is denied as moot.

B. Remaining Issues

As to the remaining issues that were not objected to by the parties, the Court has reviewed

the entire record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Guerin’s recommendations are not

clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems

Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D.

Or. 1998). 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Guerin's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #154) is

accepted and adopted.

(2) Defendants’ motions for attorneys’ fees (Doc. #’s 125, 129) are granted. 

(3) The Court awards attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $33,824.00 to TIAA-CREF

against each Plaintiff jointly and severally.

(4) The Court awards attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $66,126.00 to the Chalker

Defendants against each Plaintiff jointly and severally.

(5) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2007.

Case 4:03-cv-00091-FRZ Document 163 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 3