Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00493/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00493-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David L. Mazet, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Halliburton Company Long-Term

Disability Plan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0493-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We now have before us the parties’ stipulation to extend defendants’ time to file their

memorandum in support of their motion for attorneys’ fees (doc. 100). We construe the

stipulation as a joint motion to extend the filing deadline. 

Defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees on September 12, 2008. Plaintiff filed

a notice of appeal on September 15, 2008. The parties now ask us to extend the defendants’

deadline to file their supporting memorandum until 60 days after the Ninth Circuit “remands

the case back to this court.” We decline to do so.

To obtain relief from a judgment awarding attorneys’ fees, a party may separately

appeal the fee award as it would any final judgment, or it may move to enlarge the time to

appeal the underlying judgment until the fee judgment is rendered, and then appeal the merits

judgment and the fee award together. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iii).

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 101 Filed 09/24/08 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 -

The parties did not avail themselves of this mechanism to consolidate the appeals. Instead,

plaintiff filed its notice of appeal and now asks us to delay our consideration of the attorneys’

fee motion until after the Ninth Circuit renders judgment. 

It is well established that a district court retains jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees

after a notice of appeal on the merits has been filed. Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718

F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983). Such a policy promotes judicial economy by avoiding

piecemeal appeals and allowing an appeal of the fee award to be consolidated with the merits

appeal. Id. Moreover, a timely disposition of a motion for attorneys’ fees allows us to

consider the motion while the case is still fresh, and at the same time remains consistent with

the Civil Justice Reform Act. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the parties’ joint motion to extend the filing

deadline (doc. 100). Defendants’ supporting memorandum is due no later than October 28,

2008.

DATED this 24th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 101 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 2