Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08165/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08165-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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 

Lynnell Levingston, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Victoria L. Earle, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-08165-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ “Motion to Reopen” (Doc. 42) and 

Defendants’ “Renewed Motion for Attorney’s Fees” (Doc. 44). The Court now rules on 

the motions. 

 Defendants’ Motion to Reopen asks “for an Order reopening this case to consider 

a motion to award Defendants their attorney’s fees herein.” (Doc. 42 at 1). The Court 

entered judgment for Defendants on March 26, 2014. (Doc. 35). Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d) provides that a motion for attorneys’ fees must be “filed no 

later than 14 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(i). The local 

rules do not alter this time period. See LRCiv 54.2(b)(2) (“. . . the party seeking an award 

of attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable expenses must file and serve a motion for 

award of attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable expenses . . . within fourteen (14) days 

of the entry of judgment in the action with respect to which the services were rendered.”). 

 Because Defendants failed to file their motion for attorneys’ fees within fourteen 

Case 3:12-cv-08165-JAT Document 45 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

days after the Court’s March 26, 2014 entry of judgment, their motion is untimely.1

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Reopen (Doc. 42). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ Renewed Motion for 

Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 44). 

 Dated this 4th day of September, 2014. 

 

1

 Defendants apparently believe that Plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals precluded the Court’s judgment from being a final judgment. See (Doc. 43 at 

1; Doc. 44 at 1). As only final judgments may be appealed, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this 

belief is necessarily in error. Moreover, Plaintiff’s appeal did not divest the Court of its 

power to award attorneys’ fees. See Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 

(9th Cir. 1983). 

Case 3:12-cv-08165-JAT Document 45 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 2