O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 GCIU-EMPLOYER RETIREMENT 11 Case No. 2:16-cv-00100-ODW (AFMx) FUND AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 12 THE GCIU-EMPLOYER RETIREMENT 13 FUND, ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Plaintiff, 14 AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS 15 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE [212], [213], [216], [217] QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC., 16 Defendants. 17

18 Following the Court’s entry of judgment (ECF No. 209), Defendant moved to 19 recover their attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs. (See Def.’s Mot. for Att’y Fees, 20 ECF No. 212.) Subsequently, Plaintiff moved to recover its entitled costs and 21 attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs. (See Pls.’ Mot. for Atty’s Fees, ECF No. 216.) 22 Thereafter Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 221).1 23 When an appeal on the merits is filed, a district court has discretion to rule on a 24 claim for fees, defer its ruling on the motion, or deny the motion without prejudice 25 and direct a new filing period for filing after the claim has been resolved. Fed. R. Civ. 26 27

28 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] P. 54(d)(2), Advisory Committee Notes (1993 Amendment); Dufour yv. Allen, 2 || No. 2:14-cv-5616 CA (SSx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) 3 || (‘[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 5 || for fees involves substantial issues or is likely to be affected by the appellate decision, 6 || 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 8 || Amendment). “District courts have exercised their discretion to defer ruling on a 9 | motion for attorneys’ fees, or to deny the motion without prejudice to being renewed 10 || following disposition of the appeal.” Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 11 || No. 12-cv-1067-BEN (JLB),

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2014). 12 Given the nature of Defendant’s appeal, and upon consideration of the Parties’ 13 | Motions for Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (ECF Nos. 212, 213, 216, 217), the 14] Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Parties’ Motions. If appropriate, 15 || Parties may renew their motions within 30 days of the entry of the Ninth Circuit’s 16 | Mandate on the pending appeal. 17 18 | IT ISSO ORDERED. 19 \ 20 December 20, 2019 Yh py 21 het

OTIS D. GHT, II 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28