Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02175/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02175-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

CHARLES TIMMONS,

No. 2:05-cv-02175-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; 

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

By Memorandum and Order filed August 8, 2007, this Court

granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant United Parcel

Service (“UPS”). Presently before the Court is UPS’ September 6,

2007 Motion for Attorney’s Fees, brought pursuant to Rule 54(d)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 54-293, on

grounds that UPS is a prevailing party in accordance with the

California Fair Employment Act and the Americans with

Disabilities Act. See Cal. Govt. Code § 12965(b); 42 U.S.C.

§ 12205. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 79 Filed 10/16/07 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D.

Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

UPS asserts that the Court should exercise its discretion to

award attorney’s fees, because Plaintiff’s claims in this matter

were frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in this matter on

September 7, 2007. The Court may defer its ruling on attorney’s

fees when an appeal on the merits is pending. See 1993 Advisory

Committee Notes to FRCP 54(d) ("if an appeal on the merits of the

case is taken, the [district] court may rule on the claim for

fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion

without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new

period for filing after the appeal has been resolved."); Dumas v.

New United Motor Mfg.,Inc., 2007 WL 2109095 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

 Given the pendency of Plaintiff’s appeal, UPS’ Motion for

Attorney’s Fees is DENIED at this juncture, without prejudice to

being renewed following disposition of this matter upon appeal.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 79 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 2