Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02137/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02137-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

JOHN GILDING, a married man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JOHN S. CARR, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2137-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On April 8, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff John Gilding’s Motion to Remand to

State Court and reserved ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees pending his

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2.

(Dkt. # 102 at 12-13.) The Court subsequently extended the time in which Plaintiff could file

a fee application to April 24, 2009. (Dkt. # 104.) On April 23, one day before the fee

deadline, Defendant National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL-CIO (“NATCA”)

filed its notice of appeal. (Dkt. # 105.) Plaintiff has now filed a Request for Stay of

Proceedings. (Dkt. # 106.)

The Court is not entirely clear as to the legal basis for Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff

states that: 

The deadline to file such a Motion [for fees] is April 24, 2009,

and the Notice of Appeal was filed April 23, 2009. In order to

preserve the right to move for an award of attorney fees and

Case 2:08-cv-02137-GMS Document 108 Filed 04/23/09 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 -

costs, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court stay the

proceedings pending resolution of the appeal to the Ninth

Circuit, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).

(Id. at 1.) If Plaintiff is requesting a second extension of the fee application deadline

pursuant to the Court’s discretion, the Court declines to extend the deadline again because

no good cause has been shown. If Plaintiff is arguing that, under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 4(a)(4), NATCA’s Notice of Appeal affects Plaintiff’s right to file a fee

application, the Court notes that Rule 4(a)(4)(B) provides that notices of appeal do not

become effective until “the order disposing of the last such remaining [Rule 4(a)(4)(A)]

motion is entered.” To the extent that Rule 4(a)(4) is implicated here, it does not bar the fee

application. Thus, the Court will not stay the matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Stay of Proceedings

(Dkt. # 106) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED confirming that Plaintiff has up to and including April

24, 2009, to file his fee application in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54

and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2.

DATED this 23rd day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02137-GMS Document 108 Filed 04/23/09 Page 2 of 2