The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 STALEY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
9 v. MOTION FOR COSTS AND A STAY
OF PROCEEDINGS
10 GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al.,
Docket No. 463
11 Defendants.
12
13
14 Defendants Gilead and BMS have moved for costs and a stay (against Plaintiff KPH only)
15 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d). The Court finds this matter suitable for
16 resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing on the motion for costs
17 and a stay. In the exercise of its discretion, see Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-CV-
18 01344-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24731, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014) (noting that a court
19 has “‘broad discretion’” under the rule), the Court DENIES the request for relief. The Court is
20 not persuaded that KPH’s second suit reflects forum shopping or constitutes vexatious litigation.
21 See Simeone v. First Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 971 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir. 1992). Moreover, assuming
22 that attorney’s fees are “costs” for purposes of Rule 41(d), see Millman v. Wilmington Sav. Fund
23 Soc’y, FSB, No. 17-cv-04123-EMC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73663, at *11 n.3 (N.D. Cal. May 1,
24 2018) (noting that “the Ninth Circuit is silent on this issue, [although] several Circuit Court of
25 Appeals (Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuit Courts) have all found that attorneys’ fees are
26 ///
27 ///
1 not part of costs”), Defendants have not adequately established significant work that will be
2 useless in this second suit by KPH. See Esquivel v. Arau, 913 F. Supp. 1382, 1388, 1391 (C.D.
3 Cal. 1996).
4 This order disposes of Docket No. 463.
5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8 Dated: January 11, 2021
9
10 ______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
11 United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27