Moore 275487 v. Ryan

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Shawn Dale Moore, No. CV-18-00859-PHX-ROS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On January 28, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (Doc. 398). The Clerk of Court entered an amended judgment pursuant to the order. (Doc. 399). Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion for Attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 400). Defendants then filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s order and judgment, and Plaintiff filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal. (Doc. 406).

20 “If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the 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 to 1993 amendment.

24 “Particularly if the claim for fees involves substantial issues or is likely to be affected by the appellate decision, the district court may prefer to defer consideration of the claim for fees until after the appeal is resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P 58 advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment. “District courts have widely exercised their discretion to defer ruling on a motion for attorneys’ fees or to deny the motion without prejudice pending an appeal on || the merits.” Freeman Inv. Mgmt. Co. v. Frank Russell Co., 2017 WL 11420268, at *1 (S.D. 2|| Cal. Feb. 9, 2017).

3 Here, Plaintiff requests $123,750.00 in attorneys’ fees and $10,469.79 in costs.

4|| Before the ruling on the renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Plaintiff || requested $150,000 in attorneys’ fees and $7,061.80 in costs. Because both appeals involve || the merits of the case and may impact the value of the judgment and thus the fee award, 7\| consideration of attorneys’ fees and costs is appropriate after the appellate mandate. See || Lasic v. Moreno, 2007 WL 4180655, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007) (“In the interests of 9|| judicial economy...it would be a[n] inefficient use of judicial resources to rule on [the || motion] at this time, and then to later re-evaluate the issue after the appeal is completed.”’).

11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED given the pendency of the parties’ cross-appeals, □□□□□□□□□□□ || Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 400) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties shall file any renewed motions for attorneys’ fees and costs no later than 14 days || after the issuance of the mandate by the Ninth Circuit.

16 Dated this 25th day of April, 2025.

17 fo .

18 — 0 Senior United States District Judge _2-