Rille, et al v. Electronic Data, et al, No. 4:2004cv00986 - Document 358 (E.D. Ark. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER denying 256 Realtors' Motion for Attorney Fees and 345 Realtors' Motion for Determination of Share of Settlement Proceeds without prejudice. The parties are directed to inform the Court of the resolution of the California case within 2 weeks of the fact. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 9/28/2012. (mcz)

Download PDF
Rille, et al v. Electronic Data, et al Doc. 358 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ___________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. NORMAN RILLE AND NEAL ROBERTS, PLAINTIFFS, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action 4:04CV00986-BRW ORDER An August 24, 2012 Order in United States of America ex rel Norman Rille, et al. v. Accenture, LLP, et al.1 stayed that case until the California litigation between Relators and their former counsel, lawyers at the firm Packard, Packard, & Johnson, was resolved. A copy of that Order is attached. As in Accenture, Relators in this case have a pending Motion for Award of Statutory Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1).2 Because it appears that Relators seek certain costs in this case while arguing in California that those same costs are unexplained or inappropriate, I will not consider Relators’ Motion until the California issues are resolved. Accordingly, Relators’ Motion for Award of Statutory Fees, Costs, and Expenses (Doc. No. 256) and Motion for Determination of Relators’ Share of Settlement Proceeds (Doc. No. 345) are DENIED without prejudice. Relators may re-file their 1 4:04-CV-00985-BRW, Doc. No. 722. 2 Doc. No. 256. 1 motions upon resolution of the California case. The parties are directed to inform the Court of the resolution of the California case within two weeks of the fact. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2012. /s/Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.