Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00494/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00494-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vernon Harris, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Superior Court of the State of Arizona in

and for the County of Maricopa; the

Supreme Court of Arizona; and the State

of Arizona,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-02-494-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s

October 19, 2006 Order that, inter alia, denied without prejudice Defendants’ Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees and Related Non-Taxable Costs (the “October 19 Order”). (Dkt. 365.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Reconsideration is proper if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

evidence; (2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah City v. Acands, Inc.,

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Initially, the Court notes that Defendants have not clearly stated which of the three

limited grounds for reconsideration is the basis of their Motion. Defendants have not

Case 2:02-cv-00494-SMM Document 366 Filed 11/09/06 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 -

presented newly discovered evidence or cited to an intervening change in controlling law;

they claim merely that this Court erred in its decision. See Dkt. 365. 

The cases cited by Defendants demonstrate that “[a] judgment on the merits is final

and appealable even though a request for attorney’s fees remains unresolved,” and district

courts “retain[][] the power to award attorneys’ fees after the notice of appeal from the

decision on the merits ha[s]been filed.” See Wong v. United States, 859 F.2d 129, 131 (9th

Cir. 1988); Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court

does not dispute these propositions, nor does the October 19 Order contradict them. In the

present case, however, this Court exercised its discretion to postpone a decision on

Defendants’ request for an award of $302,081.15 in attorneys’ fees and expenses (and

$21,279.22 in related non-taxable costs), on numerous grounds, including Ariz.Rev.Stat. 

§ 12-341.01(a), 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), and Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1481(J).

After carefully weighing and balancing the interests of the Court, counsel, and the litigants

in this matter, the Court determined that it would be imprudent to resolve Defendants’

pending motions pertaining to an award of attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable costs

before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling on Plaintiff’s appeal of this Court’s

July 7, 2006 Order, which granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on each of

Plaintiff’s ten claims (dkt. 332). Defendants have failed to show that the Court’s decision

to resolve the pending motions after the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Plaintiff’s appeal is clear

error or manifestly unjust. See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A

district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a

manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for

litigants. The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of a sound discretion.”). 

In sum, Defendants have not presented newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that

this Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or established

the existence of an intervening change in controlling law which would bring this Court’s

order into question. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d at 1263. 

Accordingly, 

Case 2:02-cv-00494-SMM Document 366 Filed 11/09/06 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 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration.

(Dkt. 365.)

DATED this 9th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-00494-SMM Document 366 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 3