1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 DRUM LODGE, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00219 WBS JDP 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES 15 MARTEL CONSTRUCTION, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 On April 4, 2024, the court dismissed with prejudice 20 plaintiff Drum Lodge, LLC’s petition to vacate an arbitration 21 award in defendant Martel Construction, Inc.’s favor. (Order 22 (Docket No. 20).) This closed the case. Drum Lodge then filed a 23 notice of appeal, which appeal is currently pending. (Docket 24 Nos. 23, 24.) Now, Martel moves for its attorneys’ fees 25 incurred to successfully defend against Drum Lodge’s failed 26 petition to vacate. (Mot. (Docket No. 27-1).) 27 Courts have discretion to defer ruling on a motion for 28 attorney’s fees or to deny the motion without prejudice while an 1 appeal is pending. Fed R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) advisory committee’s 2 note to 1993 amendment (“If an appeal on the merits of the case 3 is taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its 4 ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, 5 directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing 6 after the appeal has been resolved.”); see also People for 7 Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metro. 8 Transit Auth., No. 221CV07662SSSMAAX,

, at *2 9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2023); Planet Aid, Inc. v. Reveal, Ctr. for 10 Investigative Reporting, No. 17-CV-03695-MMC,

, at 11 *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021); Stillwater Ltd. v. Basilotta, No. 12 2:16-CV-1895-SK,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 13 2021); Freeman Inv. Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Frank Russell Co., No. 13- 14 CV-2856 JLS (RBB),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 15 2017). 16 “[I]f the claim for fees involves substantial issues or 17 is likely to be affected by the appellate decision, the district 18 court may prefer to defer consideration of the claim for fees 19 until after the appeal is resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 advisory 20 committee’s note to 1993 amendment; see also G.P.P., Inc. v. 21 Guardian Prot. Prod., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00321 SKO,

22 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018) (citing same re: exercise of such 23 discretion). 24 Such is the case here: Drum Lodge’s pending appeal is 25 centrally related to the propriety of awarding attorneys’ fees in 26 relation to Drum Lodge’s petition to vacate the arbitration 27 award. The order from which the pending appeal has been taken 28 granted Martel’s motion to dismiss Drum Lodge’s petition, thereby 1 deeming Martel the prevailing party. (See generally Order.) The 2 court also reviewed and subsequently left undisturbed the 3 arbitration panel’s award of attorneys’ fees to Martel under the 4 “manifest disregard for the law” standard. (Id.) Both 5 determinations are central to Martel’s instant motion for fees, 6 such that if either determination were to be reversed on appeal, 7 Martel’s current motion would likely be rendered moot. In 8 addition, regardless of whichever party prevails on appeal, 9 additional fee motions are likely to follow. 10 Accordingly, in the interest of judicial efficiency and 11 pursuant to its discretion to do so, the court concludes that any 12 motion for attorneys’ fees is best adjudicated on the merits 13 following a final resolution of Drum Lodge’s appeal.1 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Martel’s motion for award 15 of attorneys’ fees (Docket No. 27) be, and the same hereby is, 16 DENIED without prejudice to renewal upon the final resolution of 17 /// 18 1 See, e.g., Dufour v. Allen, No. 2:14–cv–5616 CAS (SSx), 19

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) (finding, after “distributing a lengthy tentative order” and hearing oral 20 argument, that “the best course of action is to defer ruling on the [motions for attorney’s fees] until the resolution of [the 21 plaintiff’s] appeal”); Harrell v. George, No. 2:11–cv–00253–MCE 22 DAD PS,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) (deferring attorney’s fees motion by defendant who prevailed on 23 successful motion to strike pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit); Sovereign Gen. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. 24 Co., No. 2:05–cv–00389 MCE DAD,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2008) (denying motion for attorney’s fees without 25 prejudice to renewal following disposition of the matter on appeal); Flores v. Emerich & Fike, No. 1:05–CV–0291 OWW DLB, 2007

, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2007) (same); Lasic v. 27 Moreno, No. 2:05–cv–0161 MCE DAD,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007) (same re: bill of costs). 28 en ene IE EEE IRI INE III IEE IRIE IOI

1 Drum Lodge’s currently pending appeal (Docket Nos. 23, 24). 2 3 a then A be □ 4 Dated: June 4, 2024 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28