Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02126/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02126-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE K. SCHMIDT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2126-LAB-KSC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES

vs.

PNC BANK, et al.,

Defendant.

The Court dismissed this case with prejudice on March 27, 2013. PNC had filed a

motion to dismiss, and Ms. Schmidt made virtually no effort to oppose it. She simply filed

an untimely amended complaint and, with no meaningful legal argument, asserted that

adding a defendant would cure her original complaint’s defects. The Court disagreed. It

suggested that Ms. Schmidt was “using the judicial process to stall the foreclosure of her

home rather than pursue claims she sincerely believes to be meritorious.” (Doc. No. 7 at 2.) 

It also found that she had no rebuttal whatsoever to the substantive arguments for dismissal

raised by PNC. 

Ms. Schmidt appealed the Court’s dismissal of her case on April 8, 2013. Two days

later, PNC filed a motion for $10,750 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the Promissory Note and

Deed of Trust executed by Ms. Schmidt, both of which provide for them here. And once

again, Ms. Schmidt filed an opposition that doesn’t deserve that label. She argues, first, that

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-02126-LAB-KSC Document 16 Filed 06/21/13 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

an award in this case would be unjust and cites a single case, with no further explanation. 

She argues, second, that the Court should defer its ruling on the motion until her appeal is

resolved and set a briefing schedule then, citing the Advisory Committee notes to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 54. These arguments take up about 6 lines of text, if that. This is 

an astonishingly lackluster effort with $10,750.00 on the line.

The motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED, in the full amount of $10,750.00. No

doubt, as PNC suggests, Ms. Schmidt may be able to delay payment by appealing this Order

on the expectation that the Court of Appeals will consolidate it with her first appeal. Still, in

the interest of avoiding piecemeal appeals, this is the better solution. See Masalosalo v.

Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court must say it questions

whether these appeals are taken in good faith. Considering the lack of effort put into

litigating this case, it is unlikely that Ms. Schmidt will go to the trouble of thoroughly briefing

the issues on appeal for the Court of Appeals. Of course, the only business of this Court is

whether an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate, and it answers that question in the

affirmative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-02126-LAB-KSC Document 16 Filed 06/21/13 Page 2 of 2