Dague Ex Rel. Estate of Dague v. Dumesic

Ninth Circuit

Dague Ex Rel. Estate of Dague v. Dumesic

402 F. App'x 218

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 29, 2010·No. 09-16427·Unpublished

Opinion

*219 MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Joe Dague appeals the District Court’s denial of reconsideration of the magistrate’s order awarding attorney’s fees to appellees. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. See United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1980).

Based on the record, the magistrate did not abuse his discretion by holding that the correspondence via mail between the parties did not satisfy the “meet and confer” requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) and D. Nev. R. 26-7(b). See Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D.Nev.1996) Upon denying the motion to compel, it was within the magistrate’s discretion to award attorney fees to appellees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reconsideration of the magistrate’s order. The appellee’s request for attorney’s fees on the appeal is denied because the appeal is not frivolous.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*219 MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Joe Dague appeals the District Court’s denial of reconsideration of the magistrate’s order awarding attorney’s fees to appellees. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. See United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1980).

Based on the record, the magistrate did not abuse his discretion by holding that the correspondence via mail between the parties did not satisfy the “meet and confer” requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) and D. Nev. R. 26-7(b). See Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D.Nev.1996) Upon denying the motion to compel, it was within the magistrate’s discretion to award attorney fees to appellees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reconsideration of the magistrate’s order. The appellee’s request for attorney’s fees on the appeal is denied because the appeal is not frivolous.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Dague Ex Rel. Estate of Dague v. Dumesic, 402 F. App'x 218 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

402 F. App'x 218 (Dague Ex Rel. Estate of Dague v. Dumesic) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

In the Matter of the Complaint of the United States of America, as Owner of the United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., Etc., Defendants- in the Matter of the Complaint of the United States of America, as Owner of the United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, United States of America v. United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell and the Vessel "Pearl Venture", United States of America, Counter/claimant-Appellant v. The M/v Pearl Venture, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem and Pearl Carriers, Inc., Defendants/counterclaim Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., a Corp., Plaintiffs v. Pearl Carriers, Inc., and the Vessel Pearl Venture, United States of America v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Claimant-Appellee

617 F.2d 1365 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)

Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc.

170 F.R.D. 166 (D. Nevada, 1996)

Opinion

Related