Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03341/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03341-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARAH KOWALSKI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-3341 MMC

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND

DISMISSING FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

AFTER REMAND

Before the Court is plaintiff Sarah Kowalski’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Award of

Attorneys Fees After Remand, filed December 29, 2009. Defendants Paul Revere Life

Insurance Company, Farella, Braun & Martel, LLP, and Farella, Braun & Martel Long-Term

Disability Plan have filed a joint opposition, to which plaintiff has replied. Having read and

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems

the matter suitable for decision thereon, and VACATES the hearing scheduled for February

5, 2010 and rules as follows.

On August 27, 2009 the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs. (See Order filed

Aug. 27, 2009.) On September 1, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of said Order. (See Notice

of Appeal filed Sept. 1, 2009.) As of the date of the instant order, plaintiff’s appeal remains

pending before the Ninth Circuit. 

Case 3:06-cv-03341-MMC Document 93 Filed 02/04/10 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

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance – it confers

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those

aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,

459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Although, as plaintiff points out, a petition for attorneys fees

ordinarily is considered “collateral to” the decision on the merits, see Budinich v. Becton

Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 200 (1988), and consequently, for purposes of jurisdiction

pending appeal, may be determined separately therefrom, the cases on which plaintiff

relies are distinguishable, see id.; see also Graham v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

501 F.3d 1153, 1163 n.11 (10th Cir. 2007), where, as here, the order from which the

appeal is taken is the very order petitioner seeks to augment. See Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby denied for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2007 

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03341-MMC Document 93 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2