NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0424n.06

Case No. 18-1795

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

THE ESTATE OF JOANN MATOUK ROMAIN

and MICHELLE MARIE ROMAIN, Personal 

Representative of the Estate,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

CITY OF GROSSE POINTE FARMS, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. In a related appeal, Joann Matouk Romain’s estate alleges

that two police departments and many officers conspired to cover up Joann’s murder. This appeal 

is about a subject we address more often: attorney’s fees. In a fifty-nine page opinion granting 

summary judgment to the defendants, the district court included one cursory sentence about those 

fees. That was not enough. We therefore vacate and remand the district court’s denial of attorney’s 

fees.

* * *

Joann Matouk Romain’s disappearance in January 2010 led to over five years of civil 

litigation. The many defendants include the City of Grosse Pointe Farms, the City of Grosse Pointe 

Woods, and police officers from the two cities. In the conclusion of a motion for summary 
Case No. 18-1795, Estate of Joann Matouk Romain v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms, et al.

- 2 -

judgment, the Farms Defendants1requested that the order granting summary judgment “include 

an award of actual costs and attorney fees.” At the motion hearing, those defendants similarly 

asked that the district court “grant summary judgment on all of the claims and award us costs.” In 

an order granting summary judgment, the district court—in a single sentence—denied the request 

for fees and costs because it found the estate’s “pursuit of this lawsuit meritorious.” The district 

court also included the denial of fees and costs in the judgment closing the case. The Farms 

Defendants then filed a motion for reconsideration under the local rules and a motion to amend 

judgment under Civil Rule 59(e). Both motions requested that the district court allow the Farms 

Defendants to file a motion for attorney’s fees based on the entry of summary judgment in their 

favor. The district court denied those motions. This appeal followed.

The estate asserts that we cannot consider the appeal because the Farms Defendants missed

the deadline to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A).2 This Court has 

already considered (and rejected) that argument twice. The estate first raised the argument in a 

motion to dismiss this appeal. In a well-reasoned opinion, a motions panel denied the motion citing 

Penland v. Warren County Jail, 759 F.2d 524, 527 (6th Cir. 1985) (en banc) for the proposition 

that a Rule 59(e) motion addressing attorney’s fees tolls the deadline to appeal a judgment when 

the district court denies the fee request in the judgment rather than in a post-judgment order. The 

estate then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the Supreme Court overruled Penland

 

1 The City of Grosse Pointe Farms, Daniel Jensen, Jack Patterson, Andrew Rogers, Antonio 

Trupiano, Keith Colombo, Michael McCarthy, Richard A. Rosati, John Walko, Frank Zielinski, 

and Ricky Good.

2 The estate also argues that the order denying the motion for reconsideration and motion to amend 

judgment is not appealable, but we need not address the argument because we find that the Farms

Defendants timely appealed the judgment. 
Case No. 18-1795, Estate of Joann Matouk Romain v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms, et al.

- 3 -

in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson and Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988). The motions panel denied the 

motion, explaining that Penland and Budinich are distinct.

Even after the estate’s third rendition of the same argument, we see no reason to avoid the 

merits of this appeal. In Budinich, the Supreme Court held that a merits decision can be a final 

appealable order even if the parties are still litigating attorney’s fees because attorney’s fees are 

typically collateral to the merits. 486 U.S. at 199–202. Based on that holding, the estate argues that

litigants cannot use Rule 59(e) to seek reconsideration of a request for attorney’s fees because Rule 

59(e) is about judgments and judgments are distinct from fees. That means the Farms Defendants 

filed the wrong type of motion. Thus, the deadline to appeal did not toll. 

The estate’s argument ignores that here the judgment incorporated the denial of fees. The 

Farms Defendants therefore could not seek their fees through the normal channels. Instead, they 

first needed the district court to amend the judgment so that they could then file a motion for fees. 

For that reason, the Farms Defendants—like the appellants in Penland—properly filed a Rule 

59(e) motion. That motion then tolled the appeal deadline.

That brings us to whether the district court appropriately denied the request for attorney’s 

fees. We review attorney’s fees decisions for an abuse of discretion. Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, 

297 F.3d 431, 433 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). A district court abuses its discretion by 

applying the wrong legal standard, misapplying the correct standard, or relying on clearly 

erroneous findings of fact. Id. at 434 (quotation omitted). Here, the district court applied no 

standard at all. It merely wrote: “[T]he Court finds Plaintiff’s pursuit of this lawsuit meritorious 

and is therefore denying Defendants’ requests for attorneys’ fees and costs.” The court did not 

even mention the authority for attorney’s fees—let alone explain why the suit was meritorious and 

why that means the Farms Defendants could not recover their fees. When later denying 
Case No. 18-1795, Estate of Joann Matouk Romain v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms, et al.

- 4 -

reconsideration, the district court faulted the Farms Defendants for requesting fees only in passing. 

But that is because the district court denied the fees request before the Farms Defendants could 

make a detailed argument after they won summary judgment. At bottom, the district court abused 

its discretion. 

In sum, we vacate and remand the district court’s decision to deny the Farms Defendants’

request for attorney’s fees.