Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-06223/USCOURTS-ca10-24-06223-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CMI Roadbuilding Ltd.
Appellant
CMI Roadbuilding, Inc.
Appellant
SpecSys, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

CMI ROADBUILDING, INC.; CMI 

ROADBUILDING LTD., 

 Plaintiffs Counter Defendants -

 Appellants,

v.

SPECSYS, INC., 

 Defendant Counterclaimant -

 Appellee.

No. 24-6223

(D.C. No. 5:18-CV-01245-G)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, CARSON, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before us sua sponte to consider the court’s jurisdiction over this 

appeal. See Hill v. Vanderbilt Cap. Advisors, LLC, 702 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 2012) 

(this court has “an independent duty to examine [its] own jurisdiction”). 

In the district court, appellants CMI Roadbuilding, Inc. and CMI Roadbuilding 

Ltd. (collectively, “Appellants”) prevailed on some—but not all—of their claims. 

Appellants then sought to recover their attorneys’ fees. The district court denied 

Appellants’ motion for attorneys’ fees, but expressly solicited further proceedings related 

to fees. [ECF No. 539]. Specifically, the district court concluded that Appellants were 

entitled to some measure of fees, but that further proceedings were necessary to 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 2, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-6223 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 1
2

determine the precise amount Appellants could recover. [Id. at 12]. Appellants appealed 

from that order. 

While an award of fees (or an order declining to award fees) creates an appealable 

final decision, see, e.g., Art Janpol Volkswagen, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 767 

F.2d 690, 697 (10th Cir. 1985), an award of fees is not final and appealable until it is 

reduced to a sum certain. Am. Soda, LLP v. U.S. Filter Wastewater Grp., Inc., 428 F.3d 

921, 924 (10th Cir. 2005). Further, “[a]n order that . . . sets the stage for further trial court 

proceedings is not final.” Hayes Fam. Tr. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 

1003 (10th Cir. 2017).

This court entered an order directing Appellants to set forth any basis in law or 

fact why appellate jurisdiction existed. We have before us Appellants’ response to that 

order and the appellee’s subsequent submission responding both to our order and 

Appellants’ response. For the reasons articulated below, we conclude that we lack 

jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The appealed-from order concluded that Appellants were entitled to some measure 

of fees. [ECF No. 539 at 9]. However, it did not reduce the fees to which Appellants were 

entitled to a sum certain. Rather, it specifically invited additional proceedings related to 

fees, setting the stage for further trial court proceedings. [Id. at 12]. Indeed, a subsequent 

motion for attorneys’ fees [ECF No. 549] remains pending in the district court. 

Consequently, the appealed-from not presently appealable, and we are without

Appellate Case: 24-6223 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 2
3

jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 24-6223 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 3