Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00291/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00291-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 18:1962 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE FLORES, an individual; and 

CONNIE FLORES, an individual, 

 Plaintiffs,

v. 

EMERICH & FIKE, a professional

corporation, et al.

 Defendants.

1:05-CV-0291 OWW DLB

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF MINUTE

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND

RE-SETTING HEARING ON

ATTORNEY’S FEES MOTION

The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss

and/or to strike all of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to

California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 425.16. 

(Docs. 108, 134.) Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October

10, 2006. A judgment of dismissal was entered on October 12,

2006. 

On October 13, 2006, Defendants moved for attorneys fees and

costs pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, which makes

attorneys fees and costs available to a “prevailing defendant on

a special motion to strike.” Cal. Code Civ. Pro. 

§ 425.16(c). On November 13, 2006, the district court issued the

following minute order, taking the motion for attorneys fees off

calendar:

MINUTE ORDER: TEXT ONLY ENTRY - As a Notice of Appeal

has been filed, the court no longer has jurisdiction

over this case and the hearing set for 11/20/2006 is

vacated. (Lucas, G) (Entered: 11/13/2006)

Case 1:05-cv-00291-AWI -DLB Document 157 Filed 11/29/06 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. 150.) On November 17, 2006, Defendants moved for

reconsideration of this minute order. 

Defendants correctly argue that the district court does have

jurisdiction to proceed with Defendants’ motion for attorneys

fees notwithstanding the pendency of Plaintiffs’ appeal. 

Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir.

1983) (district court did not act beyond its jurisdiction by

hearing and deciding motion for attorneys fees after filing of

notice of appeal; this practice “prevent[s] postponement of fee

consideration until after the circuit court mandate, when the

relevant circumstances will no longer be fresh in the mind of the

district judge”). The issuance of the November 13, 2006 minute

order was an administrative error. Defendants’ motion for

reconsideration is GRANTED. The motion for attorneys fees is

reinstated and will be heard on February 26, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.

in Courtroom 3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

b2e55c UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00291-AWI -DLB Document 157 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2