Social Life Network, Inc. v. LGH Investments, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 SOCIAL LIFE NETWORK, INC., Case No.: 21-cv-0767-L-MDD 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITH LEAVE 14 v. TO RENEW DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 15 LGH INVESTMENTS, LLC, LUCAS AND COSTS AND DENYING AS HOPPEL, and J.H. DARBIE & CO., 16 MOOT PALINTIFF’S MOTION FOR Defendants. LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY 17 18 [ECF Nos. 59, 65] 19 Pending before the Court is LGH Investments, LLC, and Lucas Hoppel’s 20 (“Defendants”) motion for attorney’s fees and costs, (ECF No. 59), and Social Life 21 Network, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a sur-reply in connection with 22 Defendants’ motion, (ECF No. 65). The Court decides the matter on the papers 23 submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated 24 below, the Court denies the motion for attorney’s fees with leave to renew the motion and 25 denies as moot the motion for leave to file a sur-reply. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 On July 13, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to 28 amend. (ECF No. 57.) Because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint the action 1 was dismissed on July 28, 2022. (ECF No. 58.) On August 11, 2022, Defendants filed 2 the present motion for attorney’s fees and costs. (ECF No. 59.) Four days later, Plaintiff 3 appealed the denial. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff also opposed the motion for attorney’s fees 4 and costs, (ECF No. 63), and Defendants replied, (ECF No. 64). Plaintiff subsequently 5 filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply in support of its opposition, (ECF No. 65), and 6 Defendants responded, (ECF No. 66). 7 Defendants seek $255,682 in attorney’s fees and $53,770.37 in costs pursuant to 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and the parties’ agreement for the award of 9 attorney’s fees and costs to the “prevailing party.” (ECF No. 59-1, at 9.) Plaintiff urges 10 the Court to exercise its discretion and defer its ruling on the motion for attorney’s fees 11 and costs until after the Ninth Circuit resolves Plaintiff’s appeal.1 (ECF No. 63, at 9.) 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 “If an appeal on the merits of [a] case is taken, the court may rule on [a] claim for 14 fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice.” 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 advisory committee's note to 1993 amendment. Prompt consideration 16 of fee disputes can be beneficial since the services performed by counsel are “freshly in 17 mind.” See id. However, “[p]articularly if the claim for fees involves substantial issues 18 or is likely to be affected by the appellate decision, the district court may prefer to defer 19 consideration of the claim for fees until after the appeal is resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 20 advisory committee's note to 1993 amendment. “District courts have widely exercised 21 their discretion to defer ruling on a motion for attorneys' fees or to deny the motion 22 without prejudice pending an appeal on the merits.” Freeman Inv. Mgmt. Co., LLC v. 23 Frank Russell Co., No. 13-CV-2856 JLS (RBB), 2017 WL 11420268, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 24 Feb. 9, 2017) (denying motion for attorney’s fees pending resolution of appeal to the 25 Ninth Circuit and collecting cases). 26 27 1 Plaintiff also argues in the alternative that the motion should be denied or modified, but the Court need 28 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 The Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion and deny Defendants’ 3 motion for attorney’s fees and costs with leave to renew the motion following resolution 4 of Plaintiff’s appeal. If Plaintiff’s appeal is successful the present motion would be moot, 5 and the Court’s expended resources would be wasted. Further, Defendants offer a 6 substantial amount of evidence to support their claims, all which must be analyzed in 7 addition to resolving contractual issues. The Court thus declines to issue a ruling on 8 attorney’s fees and costs at this stage. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs (ECF 11 No. 59) is DENIED. Defendants are granted leave to renew the motion following the 12 Ninth Circuit’s decision on Plaintiff’s appeal. In light of the Court’s ruling Plaintiff’s 13 motion for leave to file a sur-reply (ECF No. 65) is DENIED as moot. 14 Should Defendants later choose to move for attorney’s fees and costs, they are 15 ordered as follows: 16 1. Defendants are required to include in their motion for attorney’s fees and 17 costs a summary of fees. The summary should include a chart that organizes 18 the billed hours by biller into the following categories: 19 (a) fees relating to pro hac vice applications and other procedural 20 requests to the Court, 21 (b) fees relating to responding to the original Complaint (ECF No. 1), 22 (c) fees relating to responding to the First Amended Complaint (ECF 23 No. 42), 24 (d) fees relating to the present motion for attorney’s fees and costs 25 (ECF No. 59), 26 (e) fees relating to subsequent motions for attorney’s fees and costs. 27 28 l 2. Parties are also required to include invoices from legal research platforms 2 and an affidavit from counsel confirming the research platform’s billing 3 method (i.e., by search and not by monthly fee). 4 Defendants’ renewed motion for attorney’s fees, if any, must be filed on or before 5 || fourteen (14) days after the date the Ninth Circuit issues a mandate on Plaintiff's appeal. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: October 18, 2022 pee ep? 10 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28