Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00102/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00102-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GENERAL CHARLES “CHUCK” 

YEAGER, (RET.), and GENERAL 

CHUCK YEAGER FOUNDATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONNIE BOWLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:08-102 WBS CKD

ORDER

----oo0oo----

On January 6, 2010, this court granted summary judgment 

in favor of defendants Connie and Ed Bowlin, Aviation Autographs, 

and Bowlin and Associates, Inc. (Docket No. 135.) The court 

subsequently awarded defendants $275,595.58 in attorneys’ fees

and costs on June 3, 2010. (Docket No. 169.) More than five 

years later, defendants now request another award of attorneys’ 

fees and costs incurred during the enforcement of the court’s

initial award. (Docket No. 223.) For the reasons stated below, 

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 239 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 5
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

defendants’ motion is untimely and must be denied.1 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) governs the 

procedure for enforcement of money judgments in federal court. 

See Carnes v. Zamani, 488 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). The 

rule provides that the procedure for enforcing a money judgment 

“must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is 

located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). Because no federal statute governs the 

instant motion, the court turns to California procedural law. 

See Carnes, 488 F.3d at 1060. 

California’s Enforcement of Judgments Law (“EJL”) 

states that a “judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable 

and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.” Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code § 685.040. These costs may include attorneys’ fees incurred 

while enforcing a judgment if that underlying judgment included

an award of attorneys’ fees. See id. §§ 1033.5(a)(10); 685.040. 

The judgment creditor may seek an award of postjudgment

attorneys’ fees by either filing a memorandum of costs or by 

serving a noticed motion. See id. §§ 685.070, 685.080. Under 

either method, however, the judgement creditor must request 

postjudgment attorneys’ fees before the underlying judgment is 

fully satisfied. Id. §§ 685.070(b) (“Before the judgment is 

fully satisfied but not later than two years after the costs have 

been incurred . . . .”), 685.080(a) (“The motion shall be made 

before the judgment is satisfied in full, but not later than two 

years after the costs have been incurred.”); see also Carnes, 488 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision 

without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 239 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 5
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

F.3d at 1060. 

The court understands defendants’ motion to request 

fees and costs associated solely with the enforcement of the June 

3, 2010 judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs. (See Defs.’ 

Mem. at 3.) Defendants state that judgment “has been collected 

in full.” (Id.; see also id. at 2 (“Yeager did pay Bowlins the 

balance of the underlying judgment . . . .”).) 

In its June 2, 2015 Order, the court stated its concern 

regarding defendants’ representations that the award was already 

collected in full. (Docket No. 230.) The court also cited to--

and quoted from--California Code of Civil Procedure sections 

685.070(b) and 685.080(a) as well as and Ninth Circuit precedent 

interpreting those statutes and invited both parties to submit 

supplemental briefs addressing the issue of timeliness. 

Defendants submitted a supplemental brief one day later

that utterly missed the mark. (Docket No. 231.) Defendants

completely ignored the court’s attempt to highlight problematic 

statutory language and failed to even mention sections 685.070 or 

685.080. Instead, they provided an unnecessary explanation of 

why Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) does not apply to their

motion--a rule the court never mentioned in its June 2, 2015 

Order. 

Even more astonishingly, defendants justified their 

discussion of Rule 54(d) by saying they had “no indication that 

there is any other possible basis for the Court’s request for 

supplemental briefing.” (Defs’ Supplemental Brief at 1-2.) Yet, 

plaintiff, who unlike defendants is not represented by counsel,

grasped the court’s meaning and submitted a brief that addressed

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 239 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

sections 685.070(b) and 685.080(a). (See Docket No. 237.) 

Plaintiff also stated that the court’s judgment was fully 

satisfied by March 3, 2014. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, it is 

undisputed that the court’s June 3, 2010 judgement had been paid 

in full before defendants filed their motion. 

Defendants say in passing that the Ninth Circuit’s 

additional award of $102,929.12 in attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred while this matter was on appeal remains unpaid. (Defs.’ 

Mem. at 3.) The Ninth Circuit’s award does not affect the 

timeliness of the instant motion, however, because costs and fees 

awarded by an appellate court “are not added to the trial court 

judgment, but constitute a separate judgment.”2 Lucky United 

Properties Inv., Inc. v. Lee, 185 Cal. App. 4th 125, 138 (1st 

Dist. 2010) (citing Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wilshire 

Ctr. Marketplace, 89 Cal. App. 4th 1413, 1419 (1st Dist. 2001));

see Cal. Rules of Court 8.278(b)(1), (c)(3). This motion does 

not request expenses associated with enforcement of the Ninth 

Circuit’s award, and this Order expresses no views on the 

availability of those expenses at this time. The relevant 

“judgment” for purposes of this Order is the court’s June 3, 2010 

award. 

In short, the EJL required defendants to file their 

motion before the award from this court was fully satisfied. See

 

2 This conclusion is further supported by the California 

Supreme Court’s interpretation of fee awards under California 

law, which draws a distinction between (1) “prejudgment costs, 

including attorney fees,” (2) “appellate costs and fees,” and (3) 

“postjudgment enforcement costs and fees.” In re Conservatorship 

of McQueen, 59 Cal. 4th 602, 608 (2014) (distinguishing the 

separate statutory basis for each award). 

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 239 Filed 06/17/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 685.070, 685.080. That award has been 

collected in full, and the motion is therefore untimely. See

Carnes, 488 F.3d at 1061 (affirming the denial of a similar 

motion as untimely). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs of collection of judgment be, and the 

same hereby is, DENIED. 

Dated: June 17, 2015

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 239 Filed 06/17/15 Page 5 of 5