Hammes Company Healthcare, LLC v. Tri-City Healthcare District

Full title: HAMMES COMPANY HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company; HC…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California

Date published: Aug 6, 2014

09-CV-2324 GPC (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014)

Opinion

HAMMES COMPANY HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company; HC TRI-CITY I, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company, Plaintiffs, v. TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, a California public entity; LARRY ANDERSON, an individual; PAMELA SMITH, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. No. 09-CV-2324 GPC (KSC). United States District Court, S.D. California. August 6, 2014.

          ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES (ECF NO. 204)

          GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

         On January 22, 2014, Tri-City Healthcare District ("District") filed a timely motion for attorney fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and California law. (ECF No. 204, "Motion.") Thereafter, the parties jointly moved for, and were granted, continuances of the briefing schedule and hearing date on the District's Motion. (ECF Nos. 213, 216, 223.) Currently, any response to the District's Motion is due on or before October 24, 2014, and the hearing on the District's Motion is set for November 14, 2014. (ECF No. 223.) On March 12, 2014, Hammes Company Healthcare, LLC ("Hammes") and HC Tri-City I, LLC ("HC Tri-City") filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 218.) The Ninth Circuit docket, of which this Court takes judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, indicates that the appellate briefing schedule remains vacated pending the parties' settlement efforts. (9th Cir. Case No. 14-55389, ECF No. 9.)

         "If an appeal on the merits of [a] case is taken, the court may rule on [a] claim for [attorney] fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54 advisory comm. note (1993 amendments); see also Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc., 2014 WL 2872219, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ("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. [citations].")

         On June 4, 2014, the parties indicated that, "[o]n June 2, 2014, the parties participated in mediation and would like to continue their settlement negotiations." To date, the Court has received no update by the parties as to their settlement negotiations, yet Hammes and HC Tri-City's appeal remains pending. For purposes of managing its docket, the Court will therefore deny the District's Motion without prejudice, subject to refiling at a more appropriate time. See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall , 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) ("A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.").

         Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The District's Motion, (ECF No. 204), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

2. Within seven (7) calendar days of the parties' concluding their settlement efforts, the parties are directed to file a JOINT STATUS REPORT indicating the outcome of their settlement efforts; and

3. Should the parties' settlement efforts be unsuccessful, the District may renew its request for attorney fees following resolution of Hammes and HC Tri-City's appeal to the Ninth Circuit.