Perez

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BELLA T. PEREZ, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04880-JD

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE ATTORNEY’S FEES

v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 36 10 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. Defendant Mortgage Electronic 14 Registration Systems (“MERS”) has moved for attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. No. 36. For 15 unknown reasons, Perez did not oppose the motion. Even so, the Court has a “duty to 16 independently review the applicant’s fee request.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1400 (9th 17 Cir. 1992). The fee request is denied without prejudice. 18 MERS relies on a clause in the deed of trust as the basis for the motion, but the plain 19 language of that clause does not authorize a fee award in this case. The clause at issue, section 14, 20 states in pertinent part that “Lender may charge Borrower fees for services performed in 21 connection with Borrower’s default, for the purpose of protecting Lender’s interest in the Property 22 and…