Arcona, Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC

O United States District Court Central District of California ARCONA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07058-ODW (JPR) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ FARMACY BEAUTY, LLC; DAVID C. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES CHUNG; and MARK VEEDER, AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS 16 Defendants. WITHOUT PREJUDICE [142] 18 Following the Court’s grant of partial summary judgment in Defendants’ favor (ECF No. 129), Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of its remaining claims (ECF No. 135), and the Court’s entry of judgment (ECF No. 138), Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 139). Thereafter, Defendants moved to recover their attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs. (See Mot. for Att’y Fees, ECF No. 142.)1 23 When an appeal on the merits is filed, a district court has discretion to rule on a claim for fees, defer its ruling on the motion, or deny the motion without prejudice and direct a new filing period for filing after the claim has been resolved. Fed. R. Civ. 26 P. 54(d)(2), Advisory Committee Notes (1993 Amendment); Dufour v. Allen, 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

1 || No. 2:14-cv-5616 CA (SSx), 2015 WL 12819170, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) (‘[A] district court has the discretion to defer consideration of an attorneys’ fee | motion until resolution of the underlying case’s appeal.”). “Particularly if the claim 4|| 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 Notes (1993 Amendment). “District courts have exercised their discretion to defer ruling on a | motion for attorneys’ fees, or to deny the motion without prejudice to being renewed | following disposition of the appeal.” Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin □□□□□□ Inc., | No. 12-cv-1067-BEN (JLB), 2014 WL 2872219, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2014).

11 Given the nature of Plaintiff's appeal, and upon consideration of Defendants’ || Motion for Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (ECF No. 142), the Court DENIES | WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ Motion. If appropriate, Defendants may | renew their motion within 30 days of the entry of the Ninth Circuit’s Mandate on || the pending appeal.

17 | IT ISSO ORDERED.

18 ~~ 19 August 30, 2019 SF 1 OTIS D. GHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE