Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Beth A. Wilkinson (pro hac vice) Alexandra M. Walsh (pro hac vice) James Rosenthal (pro hac vice) WILKINSON WALSH LLP 2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4000 Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com jrosenthal@wilkinsonwalsh.com Lance A. Etcheverry (SBN 199916) SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 525 University Avenue, Suite 1100 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 470-4500 Facsimile: (650) 470-4570 lance.etcheverry@skadden.com Attorneys for Defendant NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 9 10 11 Jeffrey A. Mishkin (pro hac vice) Karen Hoffman Lent (pro hac vice) SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 jeffrey.mishkin@skadden.com karen.lent@skadden.com Attorneys for Defendants NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and WESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE 12 13 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 OAKLAND DIVISION 17 18 19 IN RE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST LITIGATION 20 21 22 23 24 MDL Docket No. 4:14-md-02541-CW DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD This Document Relates to: Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken ALL ACTIONS EXCEPT Jenkins v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, Case No. 14-cv-02758-CW 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 9 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), defendants respectfully submit this opposition to 3 plaintiffs’ administrative motion requesting the Court to adopt Magistrate Judge Cousins’ recom4 mended disposition regarding plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 1277.) 5 This Court should deny plaintiffs’ administrative motion without prejudice and defer a final ruling 6 on plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pending the issuance of a mandate from the 7 Ninth Circuit. Until the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of defendants’ appeal and plaintiffs’ own cross8 appeal in this matter, the question of whether plaintiffs are the “prevailing party” entitled to re9 cover their attorneys’ fees and costs remains unsettled. It would therefore be premature to enter a 10 final judgment adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and requiring defendants to pay 11 plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees and costs prior to the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the parties’ 12 appeals. 13 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 14 On March 8, 2019, this Court entered a permanent injunction against defendants on the 15 merits of plaintiffs’ antitrust claims challenging defendants’ student-athlete compensation rules. 16 (ECF No. 1163.) The Court ruled, however, that the injunction “will be stayed pending the issu17 ance of a mandate if notice of appeal is timely filed.” (Id. at 4.) Defendants timely filed a notice 18 of appeal on March 22, 2019. (ECF No. 1167.) Plaintiffs timely filed their own notice of cross19 appeal on April 5, 2019. (ECF No. 1175.) Accordingly, the merits injunction is stayed pending 20 the issuance of a mandate following the resolution of the parties’ appeals. Final briefing on the ap21 peals is due tomorrow, February 19, 2020, and oral argument is scheduled for March 9, 2020. 22 On March 26, 2019, prior to the filing of their own notice of cross-appeal, plaintiffs filed 23 their bill of costs and a motion for attorneys’ fees, expenses and service awards. (ECF Nos. 1168, 24 1169.) This Court referred that motion to Magistrate Judge Cousins (ECF No. 1196), who, on De25 cember 6, 2019, after extensive briefing and a hearing, issued a preliminary order granting in part 26 and denying in part plaintiffs’ requested fees and costs. (ECF No. 1259.) Magistrate Judge Cous27 ins ordered the parties to submit an accounting of the awarded fees and costs consistent with his 28 preliminary order, and the parties submitted a joint proposed order on December 20, 2019. (ECF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD 1 MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 9 1 No. 1260.) On December 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Cousins granted the proposed order. (ECF 2 No. 1161.) No party filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Cousins’ fee recommendation. The facts underlying plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs were litigated while 3 4 still fresh in the minds of the participants and preserved in Magistrate Judge Cousins’ orders and 5 recommendation. The parties’ appeals of this Court’s merits injunction will be fully briefed in the 6 next twenty-four hours and will be argued in less than three weeks. Granting plaintiffs’ adminis7 trative motion prior to a decision on the appeals would likely engender further briefing and argu8 ment on the issue of a stay of the attorneys’ fee award pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision. In the 9 interest of judicial efficiency, this Court should deny plaintiffs’ administrative motion and defer 10 entering a final judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, putting 11 plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees and costs on the same timetable as the underlying merits in12 junction—deferred pending the issuance of a mandate from the Ninth Circuit. 13 III. ARGUMENT 14 It is unquestionably clear that “a district court has the discretion to defer consideration of 15 an attorneys’ fee motion until resolution of the underlying case’s appeal.” DuFour v. Allen, No. 16 2:14-cv-5616 CAS (SSx), 2015 WL 12819170, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) (citation omitted). 17 As the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state, “If an 18 appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its rul19 ing on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, directing under subdivision 20 (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 advisory 21 committee’s notes to 1993 amendments. In DuFour, although the district court had “held a hear22 ing on the motion for attorneys’ fees and distributed a lengthy tentative order,” it concluded, after 23 hearing oral argument “that the best course of action is to defer ruling on the instant motions until 24 the resolution of DuFour’s appeal.” 2015 WL 12819170, at *2; see also G.P.P, Inc. v. Guardian 25 Protective Prods., Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00321 -SKO, 2018 WL 932087, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 26 2018) (Where, inter alia, the outcome of the appeal could “affect the Court’s determination of 27 which party prevailed on which causes of action, and ultimately the amount of costs and fees to 28 which the parties are entitled,” the district court found “it most prudent to defer ruling on the DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD 2 MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 9 1 parties’ requests for costs and the attorney’s fees motions until the appeal is resolved.”); Fisher v. 2 City of San Jose, No. C 01-21192 PVT, 2004 WL 7334930, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2004) 3 (Where, “[i]f Defendants prevail on the appeal, the fees issue becomes moot,” the district court 4 concluded that, “[i]n the interest of efficient use of judicial and litigant resources, . . . it is appropri5 ate to stay the fee issue of the instant action until the appeal on the merits is complete.”). 6 To be sure, courts within the Ninth Circuit have declined to defer ruling on motions for at- 7 torneys’ fees and costs during the pendency of an appeal on the merits of the case, reasoning that 8 prompt resolution of such motions permits the parties (i) to litigate and resolve the factual issues 9 underlying the attorneys’ fees motion while the proceedings are still fresh in the participants’ 10 minds, and (ii) to consolidate any appeal of the fee award with the appeal on the merits of the 11 case.1 But neither of these principal reasons for ruling on a motion for attorneys’ fees during the 12 pendency of an appeal on the merits of the case applies here. 13 First, there can be no concern in this case that the facts related to the district court proceed- 14 ings and the tasks represented by plaintiffs’ billing record entries will not be fresh in the partici15 pants’ minds. The relevant billing records were produced and the facts were fully litigated in the 16 proceedings before Magistrate Judge Cousins. His resolution of those facts has been preserved in 17 his orders and recommendation relating to plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. A final 18 judgment on plaintiffs’ motion before the issuance of a mandate from the Ninth Circuit is unneces19 sary to ensure that memories of the relevant events are fresh in the participants’ minds. Second, any appeal of a final ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in 20 21 this case cannot readily be consolidated with the merits appeal and cross-appeal. Tomorrow, on 22 February 19, 2020, both sides will file their final briefs on the appeals, and the Ninth Circuit panel 23 will hear oral argument in less than three weeks, on March 9, 2020. The judicial efficiency that 24 1 See, e.g., Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983) (explaining the 25 policy considerations for resolving motions for attorneys’ fees pending appeal); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. C 12-6467 MMC, 2015 WL 4365494, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) 26 (“[T]he interests of judicial economy would best be served by a resolution of the motion at this time, which may allow for consolidation of any appeal of such decision with the pending appeal on 27 the merits.”); Reinicke v. Creative Empire LLC, No. 12cv1405-GPC (KSC), 2014 WL 5390176, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) (declining to defer ruling on motion for attorneys’ fees, citing Ma28 salosalo and noting that “[t]he facts and proceedings of the case are still fresh”). DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD 3 MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 9 1 some courts have found is served by an early ruling on a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs dur2 ing the pendency of a merits appeal simply does not exist in this case. By contrast, the deferral of a final decision on plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and 3 4 costs, rather than its early issuance, will serve judicial efficiency by avoiding unnecessary and 5 costly motion practice concerning a stay of such a final ruling. Both plaintiffs and defendants have 6 appealed this Court’s merits decision, increasing the possibility that some aspect of that decision 7 may be altered by the Ninth Circuit. Under these circumstances, where the question of which 8 party is ultimately the “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs re9 mains unsettled, it would be grossly unfair to require defendants actually to pay plaintiffs more 10 than $30 million in attorneys’ fees and costs before the resolution of the appeals and the issuance 11 of the mandate from the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, a final judgment on plaintiffs’ motion for at12 torneys’ fees and costs prior to the issuance of a mandate from the appellate court will undoubtedly 13 trigger the filing of a motion for a stay of that judgment pending appeal, with all of the judicial and 14 litigant expense attendant such motion practice. Deferral of a final ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for 15 attorneys’ fees and costs would obviate the need for such motion practice and, in that way, serve 16 judicial efficiency. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny plaintiffs’ administrative motion and de- 19 fer a final ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pending the issuance of a man20 date from the Ninth Circuit. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD 4 MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 6 of 9 1 DATED: February 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 2 3 4 WILKINSON WALSH LLP SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP By: By: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 /s/ Beth A. Wilkinson Beth A. Wilkinson (pro hac vice) Alexandra M. Walsh (pro hac vice) James Rosenthal (pro hac vice) 2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4000 Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com jrosenthal@wilkinsonwalsh.com /s/ Jeffrey A. Mishkin Jeffrey A. Mishkin (pro hac vice) Karen Hoffman Lent (pro hac vice) Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 jeffrey.mishkin@skadden.com karen.lent@skadden.com Lance A. Etcheverry (SBN 199916) 525 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 470-4500 Facsimile: (650) 470-4570 lance.etcheverry@skadden.com Attorneys for Defendant NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 12 Attorneys for Defendants NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and WESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP MAYER BROWN LLP By: By: /s/ Bart H. Williams Bart H. Williams (SBN 134009) Scott P. Cooper (SBN 96905) Kyle A. Casazza (SBN 254061) Jennifer L. Jones (SBN 284624) Shawn S. Ledingham, Jr. (SBN 275268) 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 scooper@proskauer.com bwilliams@proskauer.com kcasazza@proskauer.com jljones@proskauer.com sledingham@proskauer.com /s/ Britt M. Miller Andrew S. Rosenman (SBN 253764) Britt M. Miller (pro hac vice) 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Facsimile: (312) 701-7711 arosenman@mayerbrown.com bmiller@mayerbrown.com Richard J. Favretto (pro hac vice) 1999 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Facsimile: (202) 263-3300 rfavretto@mayerbrown.com Attorneys for Defendant PAC-12 CONFERENCE Attorneys for Defendant THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC. 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD 5 MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 7 of 9 1 POLSINELLI PC ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON By: By: 2 3 4 5 6 /s/ Leane K. Capps Leane K. Capps (pro hac vice) Caitlin J. Morgan (pro hac vice) 2950 N. Harwood Street Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 397-0030 lcapps@polsinelli.com cmorgan@polsinelli.com 7 8 9 Amy D. Fitts (pro hac vice) 120 W. 12th Street Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 218-1255 afitts@polsinelli.com /s/ Robert W. Fuller Robert W. Fuller, III (pro hac vice) Nathan C. Chase Jr. (SBN 247526) Lawrence C. Moore, III (pro hac vice) Pearlynn G. Houck (pro hac vice) Amanda R. Pickens (pro hac vice) 101 N. Tryon St., Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 Facsimile: (704) 378-4000 rfuller@rbh.com nchase@rbh.com lmoore@rbh.com phouck@rbh.com apickens@rbh.com 10 11 12 Wesley D. Hurst (SBN 127564) 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-1801 whurst@polsinelli.com Mark J. Seifert (SBN 217054) Seifert Law Firm 425 Market Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 999-0901 Facsimile: (415) 901-1123 mseifert@seifertfirm.com 13 14 Attorneys for Defendants THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE, INC. and CONFERENCE USA, INC. Attorneys for Defendant SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD 6 MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 8 of 9 1 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 2 By: By: 3 4 5 6 7 /s/ D. Erik Albright D. Erik Albright (pro hac vice) Gregory G. Holland (pro hac vice) 300 North Greene Street, Suite 1400 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 378-5368 Facsimile: (336) 378-5400 ealbright@foxrothschild.com gholland@ foxrothschild.com Rebecca A. Jacobs (SBN 294430) Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 rjacobs@cov.com Jonathan P. Heyl (pro hac vice) 101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1300 Charlotte, NC 28246 Telephone: (704) 384-2625 Facsimile: (704) 384-2800 jheyl@ foxrothschild.com 8 9 /s/ Benjamin C. Block Benjamin C. Block (pro hac vice) One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: (202) 662-5205 Facsimile: (202) 778-5205 bblock@cov.com 10 Alexander Hernaez (SBN 201441) Jeffrey Polsky (SBN 120975) 345 California Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 364-5540 Facsimile: (415) 391-4436 ahernaez@foxrothschild.com jpolsky@foxrothschild.com 11 12 13 14 15 Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE Attorneys for Defendant THE ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE 16 17 WALTER HAVERFIELD LLP BRYAN CAVE LLP 18 By: By: 19 20 21 22 /s/ R. Todd Hunt R. Todd Hunt (pro hac vice) Benjamin G. Chojnacki (pro hac vice) The Tower at Erieview 1301 E. 9th Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114-1821 Telephone: (216) 928-2935 Facsimile: (216) 916-2372 rthunt@walterhav.com bchojnacki@walterhav.com Richard Young (pro hac vice) Brent Rychener (pro hac vice) 90 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1300 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 473-3800 Facsimile: (719) 633-1518 richard.young@bryancave.com brent.rychener@bryancave.com 23 24 /s/ Meryl Macklin Meryl Macklin (SBN 115053) 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-1981 Facsimile: (415) 430-4381 meryl.macklin@bryancave.com Attorneys for Defendant MID-AMERICAN CONFERENCE 25 26 Attorneys for Defendant MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD 7 MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1279 Filed 02/18/20 Page 9 of 9 1 JONES WALKER LLP 2 By: 3 4 5 6 /s/ Mark A. Cunningham Mark A. Cunningham (pro hac vice) 201 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170-5100 Telephone: (504) 582-8536 Facsimile: (504) 589-8536 mcunningham@joneswalker.com Attorneys for Defendant SUN BELT CONFERENCE 7 8 9 FILER’S ATTESTATION I, Karen Hoffman Lent, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used 10 to file Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Adopt Recommended Fee 11 Award. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that all signatories hereto concur in 12 this filing. 13 /s/ Karen Hoffman Lent 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED FEE AWARD 8 MDL No. 4:14-md-02541-CW