The Appeal Clock for Attorneys Fees
In Upchurch v. O’Brien, the Seventh Circuit dismissed as untimely an appeal from a sanction-based award of attorneys fees. The court explained that an award of attorneys fees need not be set out in a separate document to start the appeal clock. Instead, the clock starts when the fees are awarded.
The Fee Award in Upchurch
Simplifying a bit, the plaintiff in Upchurch had “waged a relentless and disturbing campaign of harassment against his neighbors” that included this lawsuit. The district court eventually sanctioned the plaintiff and his attorney under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 37, noting that the case “should never have seen the light of day.” And the district court awarded attorneys fees and costs as the sanction.
About a week later, the district court entered a final judgment in the action. Twenty-seven days after that, the plaintiff appealed.
The Timeline for Attorneys-Fees Appeals
The Seventh Circuit concluded that this appeal was untimely.
Civil litigants have 30 days to file their notice of appeal. That clock normally starts running on the entry of the appealed judgment. And under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(7), most judgments are deemed entered when the judgment is set out in a separate document.
But not all judgments require a separate document to start the appeal clock. These judgments are instead deemed entered when they are themselves entered on the docket.
The question, then, was whether the district court’s award of fees and costs required a separate judgment to start the appeal clock. If it did, the plaintiff’s appeal was untimely. If no separate judgment was necessary, the appeal was fine.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(3) states that “a separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion … for attorney’s fees under Rule 54.” And the Seventh Circuit has held that a “request for attorney’s fees need not arise under Rule 54 expressly for the Rule 58(a)(3) exception to apply.” In Feldman v. Olin Corp., the Seventh Circuit explained that Rule 54 itself does not create right to attorneys fees. That right comes from other statutes and rules. Rule 54 is instead “the rule on judgments,” and it “makes awards of attorneys’ fees one type of judgment.”
So even though the fee order in Upchurch came under Rules 11 and 37 (rather than “under Rule 54”), no separate document was required to start the appeal clock. The appeal was thus untimely, and the Seventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the fee order.
Upchurch v. O’Brien, 2024 WL 3659327 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024), available at the Seventh Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
A ruling on liability is not final until the court specifies a remedy. But what if that remedy consists entirely of attorney fees? The Supreme Court has long held that a decision on the merits is final despite any unresolved issues regarding attorney fees. So is a ruling on liability final when the remedy is […]
Continue reading....
In Hanover American Insurance Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that failure to file a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law forfeits the right to renew that motion via Rule 50(b). At the close of evidence, the plaintiff in Hanover Insurance moved for judgment as a matter […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....