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
In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
Last month produced decisions involving a variety of appellate-jurisdiction issues. The Fifth Circuit decertified a § 1292(b) appeal. Judge Pillard of the D.C. Circuit explained that appellate “standing” does not require re-establishing standing in the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit said that qualified immunity and an action’s merits are intertwined, which suggests (perhaps unintentionally) […]
Continue reading....
A new cert petition asks whether the denial of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
Continue reading....