BGC Inc. v. Robinson
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-01582
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In BGC Inc. v. Robinson, Judge White ordered the defendants to explain why the court should not rule on BGC’s attorney-fee request.
BGC Inc. and the defendants, Rauhmel Fox Robinson and the other named defendants. The order specifically required the defendants to respond regarding BGC’s attorney-fee request.
What happened
In BGC Inc. v. Robinson, the court had previously enforced a settlement agreement and concluded that BGC Inc. was entitled to attorney’s fees. BGC then filed a declaration describing the amount of fees it had incurred.
The defendants’ response to the fee amount was due July 31, 2023, but they did not file one. New counsel appeared for both defendants on July 25 and filed a notice of appeal.
The court ordered the defendants to explain in writing by August 8, 2023, why it should not rule on BGC’s request for fees. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order.
The detailed version
- BGC Inc. v. Robinson · No. 4:22-cv-01582
- Jeffrey White
- Aug. 1, 2023
Background
On July 3, 2023, the court granted BGC Inc.’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement and concluded that BGC was entitled to attorney’s fees. On July 24, BGC filed a declaration concerning the amount of fees it had incurred.
Fee Request and Appeal
The defendants’ opposition to the amount of fees was due July 31, 2023. The defendants did not file an opposition. On July 25, new counsel appeared for both defendants and filed a notice of appeal.
Order
The court stated that it generally retains authority to award attorney’s fees after a notice of appeal from the decision on the merits has been filed. It ordered the defendants to show cause in writing by August 8, 2023, why the court should not issue a ruling on BGC’s request for fees. The opinion is an order to show cause; it does not state a final ruling on the amount of fees.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.