Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03635/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03635-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Columbia
Appellant
Maureen Doyle
Appellee
Memorial Day Weekend Salute to Veterans Corporation
Not Party
Bill Wickersham
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3635

___________

Bill Wickersham; Maureen Doyle, * 

*

Plaintiffs/Appellees, *

 * 

v. * 

 * 

City of Columbia, Missouri, *

 * 

Defendant/Appellant, *

 *

Memorial Day Weekend Salute to * 

Veterans Corporation, *

 *

Defendant. * 

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 06-3637 District Court for the Western

___________ District of Missouri.

Bill Wickersham; Maureen Doyle, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Plaintiffs/Appellees, *

 * 

v. * 

 * 

City of Columbia, Missouri, *

 *

Defendant, *

 *

Memorial Day Weekend Salute to *

Veterans Corporation, *

Appellate Case: 06-3635 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293743
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

 *

Defendant/Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 20, 2006

 Filed: March 30, 2007

 ____________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

 ____________

PER CURIAM.

Before the court are appeals filed by the City of Columbia and the Memorial

Day Weekend Salute to Veterans Corporation (Salute) from the district court's1

 award

of attorney fees and costs to Bill Wickersham and Maureen Doyle. Wickersham and

Doyle have moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of a final appealable order.

Appellees filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Columbia

and Salute alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. On March 31, 2006

the district court ruled on the merits of their claim, holding both appellants liable for

violating appellees' free speech rights. Wickersham v. City of Columbia,

05-4061-CV-C-NKL, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15438 (W.D. Mo. March 31, 2006).

While Salute's appeal from that judgment was pending in this court, the district court

awarded costs and attorneys fees in excess of $200,000 to appellees as prevailing

parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

The court declined to resolve how the fees should be apportioned between

appellants, however. It directed the parties to file a motion within 30 days if they

Appellate Case: 06-3635 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293743
-3-

could not reach an agreement on fee allocation. Appellees timely filed a motion with

the district court to have appellants held jointly and severally liable for fees and costs.

Salute opposed the motion and requested that the court stay any further proceedings

relating to attorney fees, including any allocation order, until this court had decided

its appeal of the judgment. On March 22, 2007 we issued an opinion affirming the

judgment and the district court's injunction. Wickersham v. City of Columbia, No.

06-1922, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6600 (8th Cir. March 22, 2007).

A decision is final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 if it "ends the

litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the

judgment." Borntrager v. Cent. States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund,

425 F.3d 1087, 1091 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527

U.S. 198, 204 (1999)); see also Gates v. Cent. States Teamsters Pension Fund, 788

F.2d 1341, 1343 (8th Cir. 1986) (award of attorney fees not appealable where amount

not quantified). 

Here the district court has not yet resolved the apportionment of fees between

the two appellants. No final order has been entered on the fees. This issue is not a

"mechanical and uncontroversial" one, see St. Mary's Health Ctr. v. Bowen, 821 F.2d

493, 498 (8th Cir. 1987) (noting exception to rule that order not fixing damages is not

final), but rather is a matter for the district court's discretion. See Hendrickson v.

Branstad, 934 F.2d 158, 162 (8th Cir. 1991). Because a fees motion is still pending

before the district court, it cannot be said that the order from which Salute and the City

of Columbia appeal disposes of all controverted issues and "leaves nothing for the

court to do but execute the judgment." Borntrager, 425 F.3d at 1091. 

Since these appeals are premature, we lack jurisdiction over them and therefore

dismiss them without prejudice.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3635 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293743