Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01192-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL L. ESPINOSA,

No. 2:06-cv-01192 MCE GGH PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER 

SCOTT MARSHALL, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On July 16, 2007, Defendants filed the instant motion,

pursuant to Local Rule 54-293, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

54(b)(2)(B), and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for attorney’s fees and related

costs as the prevailing party in this case. 

The Court may defer its ruling on attorney’s fees when an

appeal on the merits is pending. See 1993 Advisory Committee

notes to FRCP 54(d) ("if an appeal on the merits of the case is

taken, the [district] court may rule on the claim for fees, may

defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without

prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for

filing after the appeal has been resolved."); Dumas v. New United

Motor Mfg., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49098 (D. Cal. 2007).

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 116 Filed 09/19/07 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D.

Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

Subsequent to the filing of Defendants’ request for

attorney’s fees, Plaintiff filed an Appeal with the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals on July 16, 2007. Given the pendency of that

appeal, Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED at this

juncture, without prejudice to being renewed following

disposition of this matter upon appeal.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 116 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2