Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02574/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02574-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

In re Elegant Custom Homes, Inc., 

Debtor. 

Elegant Custom Homes, Inc., et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Elaine M. Dusharm, 

Appellee. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2574-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Appellee has filed a motion for attorneys’ fees. Dkt. #16. Appellant has filed an

Objection to Application for Fees. Dkt. #27. For the reasons stated below, the Court will

deny the motion.

Appellee filed a motion for fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2).

Dkt. #16 at 1. Rule 54(d)(2)(D) establishes that Local Rules of Civil Procedure apply to a

motion for attorneys’ fees. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2 sets forth the guidelines for

claims for attorneys’ fees in the District of Arizona. Because Appellee did not follow the

guidelines of Local Rule 54.2, the Court will deny the motion.

Specifically, Appellee did not file a Statement of Consultation as required by Local

Rule 54.2(d)(1). Such a statement certifies that “after personal consultation and good faith

efforts to do so, the parties have been unable to satisfactorily resolve all disputed issues

relating to attorneys’ fees or that the moving counsel has made a good faith effort, but has

Case 2:06-cv-02574-DGC Document 33 Filed 07/05/07 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

- 2 -

been unable, to arrange such conference.” LRCiv. 54.2(d)(1). Appellee seeks $11,476.00,

and Appellant responds that, if fees are awarded at all, $5000 would be an appropriate

amount. See Dkt. ##16 at 2; 27 at 1. The difference between parties’ positions is relatively

small, and the Court hopes the parties can reach an agreement through good faith

consultation.

Additionally, Appellee’s motion does not discuss the 13 factors required to

demonstrate the reasonableness of the requested award. See LRCiv. 54.2(c)(3). Instead,

Appellee’s counsel merely states that the requested award and hourly rates are reasonable.

Dkt. #16 at 2. This statement does not satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 54.2.

Finally, the Court notes that Appellants have filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. #23. The outcome of the appeal will likely determine

whether Appellee is ultimately entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees. In the interests of

avoiding unnecessary expenditures of resources by the parties and the Court, the Court will

grant the parties extensions of time to file motions for attorneys’ fees until after the Ninth

Circuit renders its judgment in this case.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Appellee’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. #16) is denied.

2. Appellee shall have an extension of time to file any Memorandum of Points and

Authorities in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees to thirty (30) days after a final

disposition of any appellate proceedings in this case.

3. Appellant shall have an extension of time to file any Response to Appellee’s

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees until forty-five (45) days after a final disposition of any appellate

proceedings in this case. 

DATED this 5th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02574-DGC Document 33 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 2