Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY JZARRILLO,Plaintiffs,CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor,v ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in hisofficial capacity as Governor ofCalifornia; EDMUND G BROWN JR, inhis official capacity as AttorneyGeneral of California; MARK BHORTON, in his official capacityas Director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health andState Registrar of VitalStatistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in herofficial capacity as DeputyDirector of Health Information &Strategic Planning for theCalifornia Department of PublicHealth; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in hisofficial capacity as Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in hisofficial capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for theCounty of Los Angeles,Defendants,DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL JKNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponentsof Proposition 8,Defendant-Intervenors./ No C 09-2292 VRWORDER 
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document744 Filed08/24/10 Page1 of 3
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor move to enlarge timeto file their motion for attorney fees and costs until thirty daysafter all appeals are final. Doc ##729, 742. The Governor, Attorney General and Alameda County do not oppose the motion. Doc##735, 739, 741. Proponents oppose any enlargement of time. Doc#743.Under FRCP 54(d), a prevailing party must file its motionfor attorney fees and costs not later than fourteen days afterentry of judgment. The court may, however, extend time to file the motion. FRCP 54(d)(2)(B); see Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendments (noting that the court may permit claims for fees andcosts to be filed after resolution of the appeals process).Proponents ask the court to retain the fourteen daydeadline to provide the government defendants with an opportunityto consider their potential liability for fees and costs before thetime to appeal has run. Doc #743 at 7-8. Proponents also seek toensure the court will have the opportunity to decide the motion forfees and costs while the memory of the case remains fresh. Id at8.Here, however, prudence dictates that the court wait toconsider any motion for fees and costs until all appeals from thejudgment are final. The Ninth Circuit is considering proponents’appeal on an expedited schedule, requiring the parties’ fullattention and potentially generating additional fees. Moreover,the government defendants do not oppose an extension of time,suggesting that the amount of attorney fees sought by plaintiffswill not inform their decisions whether to appeal. Finally, thecase is unlikely to fade quickly from the court’s memory. Any
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document744 Filed08/24/10 Page2 of 3
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more