Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08256/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08256-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Chunhye Lee, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Board of Regents, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08256-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Chunhye Lee filed an amended complaint on November 25, 2013, 

asserting claims against Defendants for retaliation and intimidation in employment. 

Doc. 6. On February 11, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims as barred by res 

judicata, but denied Defendants’ motions for sanctions. Defendants State of Arizona and 

Arizona Board of Regents (“ABOR”) filed an application for attorney’s fees on 

February 25, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Doc. 35. The motion has been fully 

briefed. Docs. 39, 40. 

 After Defendants filed this motion, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth 

Circuit. Doc. 37. “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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), advisory committee’s note (1993 

amendments); see also Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 220, 225-26 (2nd 

Case 3:13-cv-08256-DGC Document 41 Filed 04/07/14 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 

Cir. 2004). In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will not rule on Defendants’ 

motion until after the Ninth Circuit has ruled on Plaintiffs’ appeal. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 35) is denied 

without prejudice to re-filing within 30 days of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of 

Plaintiff’s appeal. 

 Dated this 7th day of April, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08256-DGC Document 41 Filed 04/07/14 Page 2 of 2