Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00134/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00134-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Citizenship

---

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

SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GRUPO MÉXICO, S.A.B. de C.V., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-CV-0134-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Grupo México’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and

Expenses (Doc. 152). Defendant filed its Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses

seeking to recover in excess of $800,000 pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341, § 12-341.01(A) and

Local Rule 54.2(b)(1). Also before the Court is Plaintiff Seaboard Surety Company’s Motion

for Court Ordered Mediation of Claim of Defendant for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses

(Doc. 160). Plaintiff requests that the court refer the matter of Defendant’s Motion for

Attorney Fees and Bill of Costs for a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. 

On December 15, 2009, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with

prejudice (Doc. 150), and judgment was entered the same day (Doc. 151). On December 29,

2009, Defendant filed its Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses (Doc.152). Also on

December 29, Defendant filed its Bill of Costs (Doc. 153). Plaintiff filed its objections to

the Bill of Costs on January 11, 2010 (Doc. 155).

 After Defendant moved for attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff appealed the Court’s Order

granting the motion to dismiss to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case 2:06-cv-00134-SMM Document 161 Filed 01/25/10 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 -

(Doc.156). 

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

litigants in this matter, the Court finds that it would be imprudent to resolve Defendant’s

pending motion pertaining to an award of attorneys’ fees and related costs while Plaintiff’s

appeal is pending. Consequently, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’

Fees, Costs, and Expenses (Doc.152) without prejudice and with leave to re-file upon the

Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal. 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.”)

Likewise, the Court has determined that it would be imprudent to refer the matter of

attorney fees to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference due to Plaintiff’s pending

appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING without prejudice Defendant Grupo

México’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses (Doc. 152) with leave to renew the

motion after resolution of the appeal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff Seaboard Surety’s Motion for

Court Ordered Mediation of Claim of Defendant for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses

(Doc. 160).

DATED this 25th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-00134-SMM Document 161 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2