Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30377 M A L IN IN T E R N A T IO N A L S H IP R E P A IR A N D D R Y D O C K , IN C ., P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. V E O L IAE S S P E C IA L S E R V IC E S , IN C ., D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 08- C V

- 0110 B ef ore K IN G , JO L LY , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * V eol i a E s Sp eci alServi ces , I nc . (“Veo li a”) a ppe al s thedi s trictcourt ’ s aw ard of attorn ey ’ s fee s to M a l i n In tern a ti on a l S h i p R ep a i r a n d D ry d ock , In c. (“M a l i n ”) F o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e db e l o w , w e a f f i r m. I . B AC KGR OUND T h e facts th a t ga ve ri se t o th i s ca se are n ot i n disp u te. V eo l i arefu sed to pa y M ali n o ve r$ 1. 2 m i l l i o n f o r w o r k pe r f

o r m e d byM ali n o n Veo l i a’ s v e s s e l , t he S e i m S w o r df

i s h MV . A f t er perf orm i n g t h e w ork requ est ed, M alin re m i t t ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 9, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30377 Document: 00511046141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2010N o. 09- 30377

2 i nvo i c e s f

o rit s w o rk. Thes e i nvo i c e s i nc l ude d s t and ar d t e r m s a nd c o ndit i o ns th a t a r e fo u n do n a ll o f M a lin ’ s in v o ic e s , i n c lu d in gap r o v is io n w h e r e b yM a lin w o u ldb e e n tit l e dto re c o v e rits co s ts o f c o lle c tio n , in c lu d in gre a s o n a b le a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s . A f t er un successf

u latt e m p ts t o res olve t h e di spu t e regardi n g w ork perf orm ed on t h e S e i m S w o r df i s h MV , M al i n f

i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tVeo l i a. The di s t r i c tc o u r the l d t w o s e pa r at e pr e t r i alc o nfe r e nc e s i n t hi s m at t e r . Fo l l o w i ng e ac h, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tm ad e m i nut e e nt r i e s , a nd n e i t he rpr o vi de d thatt he i ssues of en t i t l em en tto a n d qu an t u m of att orney’ s f

ees w ere t o be bi f

u rcat ed f

or purpos es of

t he t r i al . The par t i es al so f i l ed a j oi ntpr et r i alor der , appr ove d by t h e di st ri ct court, t h at st ated t h at “ [t] h e i ssue of l i abili t y w i lln o t b e tri ed sep a ra tel y from tha t of qu a n tu m . ” At w o- day be nch tr i alw as hel d on Febr uary 12–13, 2009, and duri ng t r i al M al i n fai l ed to present evi den ce c on cerni n g t h e qu an t u m of i t s att orney’ s f ees. F oll ow i n g trial , the d i stri ct cou rt fou n d i n M a li n ’ s fav or an d en tered j u d gm en t, on F eb ru a ry20 , 20 0 9 , as to th e p ri n ci p a lam ou n t ow ed , p r eju d gm en t i n teres t, an d an entit l em en tt o att orney’ s f ees. In a m in u t e entry f ol l ow i n g t h e ben ch tria l, t h e courti n st ructed M al i n t o subm i ta bri ef sup porti n g t h e qu an t u m of a ttorn ey ’ s fee s an dga ve V eo l i af ou rteen da ys to f

i l e aresp on se. M a l i n fil edits a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s b r ie f o n F e b r u a r y2 7 , 2 0 0 9 , cla im in g$ 7 9 ,8 3 7 .7 5 . V eo l i a res ponded by f i l i ng both a m ot i on f

ora new t r i alon M ar c h 5, 2009, a rg u i n g th a t R u l e 5 4 pr eclu d es a n attorn ey ’ s fee s aw a rd , an da re sp on se to M al i n ’ s bri ef

on M arch 13, 2 009 , u rgi n g aga i n tha tR u l e 5 4 precl u des an aw ard of att orney’ s f

ees t o M al i n a n d, a l t erna t ivel y, tha tM al i n shou l d n otbe aw arded t h e f u l lam ou n tof

it s c l ai m ed att orney’ s f ees. T h e d istri ctcourtaw arded at t or ney’ s fee s t o M al i n and deni ed Veoli a’ s m ot i on f ora new t r i alon Apri l14, 2 0 0 9 . T h e c o u r te n t e r e d ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f M a li n fo r$ 7 9 ,8 3 7 .7 5 in a t t o r n e y ’s fe e s o n A p r il 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 . T h is a p p e a l fo llo w e d . Case: 09-30377 Document: 00511046141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2010N o. 09- 30377

3 I I . D I S CUS S I ON R u l e 4 2 (b ) go ve rn s bif u rca ti on an dpr ov i d es th a t “ [f ]or con ve n i en ce, to a v o id p reju d i ce, or to ex p ed i te an decon om i ze , the cou rt m a y o rd er a sep a ra te t r i alo f o ne o rm o r e s e pa r at e i s s ue s , c l ai m s , c r o s s c l ai m s , c o unt e r c l ai m s , o rt hi r dp a rty claim s. ” F ED . R . C IV . P . 4 2(b) . W e w i l loverrul e a di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on to ord er a sev era n ce on ly u p on a sh ow i n g th a t th e d i stri ct cou rt ab u sed its d is c r e tio n . S e eF.D .I.C . v . Se la id e n B u ild e rs , In c ., 97 3 F. 2d1 24 9, 1 25 3 (c i t i ng Fid . & Ca s. Co . v . Mills , 3 19 F . 2d6 3 ( 5th C i r. 1 963 ) ) . Adi st ri ctcourtm ay sever aca s e u p o n its o w n m o tio n . Mills , 319 F. 2d at63. In th e in s ta n t c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c te dw ith in i t s d is c r e tio n w h e n it bi f u rcat ed the i ssues of entit l em en tt o an d qu an tu m o f att orney’ s f ees. Th ese i ssu es w ere cl ea rl y se p a ra b l e, since the i ssu e of qu a n tu m w ou l dn ot com e into q u estionu n l ess the distri ct cou rt f i rst f ou n dtha t M a l i n w a s i n fa ct e n tit l edto at t or ney’ s fee s. Fort he purpo seof j udi c i alec onom y, the di st r i c tc our tw as w i t hi n it s di s c r e t i o n t o c o nc l ude t hatitw o u l d no the are vi de nc e a s t o t he am ou n t , if

an y, of att orney’ s f

ees un t i litf

i rstdeter m in e d en t i t l em en tsi n ce a n egative f

i n di n g on entit l e m e n t w o u ld neg ate th e needt o hea r evi den ce of q u a n tu m . V e o liaa r g u e s th a t t h e q u a n tu m o f a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s s o u g h t b yM a lin constit u t es an el em en tof dam ages that i tw as requ i red t o prove at t ri alrat h er th a n co lla te r a l l yu n d e rR u le 5 4 . S ee F ED . R . C IV . P. 5 4( d) ( 2) (A) . As s um i ng argue ndo t hat V eo l i a i s c or r ec t , t hi s i s a ques t i on t hat w e need notaddr es s t oday b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i dn o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n b yb i f u r c a t i n gq u a n t u m. S ee Pr id eH

y u n d a i, In c . v . Ch r

y s le rFin . Co ., 3 5 5 F . S u p p . 2 d60 0 , 60 5 -06 (D . R . I. 2 0 0 5 ) (a c k n o w le d g in gth a t in t h e e x e r c is e o f its b r o a dd is c r e tio n , th e co u r t c o u ld h ave en act ed a bi f

u rcat ed p rocedure pri or t o t ri al , al t h ou gh t h e att orney’ s f ees r e p r e s e n te da n e le m e n t o f d a m a g e s th a t h a d t o b e p r o v e n a t t r ia l, b u t s im p ly c h o s e n o t d o s o ). Case: 09-30377 Document: 00511046141 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/09/2010N o. 09- 30377

4 V e o liaa ls o a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e db e c a u s e itfa ile dto fo r m a lly e n te rab ifu r c a tio n o r d e rin to th e re c o r d . In v ie w o f th e p r e tr ia l o r d e r , it c e r t ai nly w o ul d ha vebeen p refera bl e t o e nt e rs uc h a n o r de ro rt o m o dif y t he p retrial ord er. B u t ulti m a tel y, V eo l i a ’ s ar gu m en t fa i l s to carr y th e d a y. F i rst, w h i l e t h e pret ri alorder s t ated t h at liab i l i t y an d qu an t u m w ou l d be tr i ed to g e th e ra n dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t n e v e r fo r m a lly e n te r e da n o r d e ro f b ifu r c a tio n , in t h e court ’ s O rder andR eason s th e courtexpressly n ot ed that t h e parti es w ere i nf o r m e d o f

it s i nt e nt i o n t o bi f

ur c at e t he i s s ue s of

e nt i t l e m e ntt o a nd q uant um of at t or ney’ s fee s. Sec ond, M al i n expr es sly i n d i ca ted , i n i t s pre - t r i al m em oran du m , t h at onl y i f t h e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d an atto rn e y ’ s f ee aw ard a p p r o p r ia te w o u ldit s u b m it in v o ic e s in s u p p o r t of s u c h a n a w a r d . T h ir d , V e o lia doe s notar gue thatitw as unaw a re th a t th e a t t or ney’ s fee s i ss ue w oul d be h a n d le da t le a s t in p a r t t h r o u g h p o s t-t r ia l m o tio n . W e are c on vi n ced t h at V eol i a w as aw are of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s bif u rcat i on of qu an t u m . B u teven assum i n g t h at V eol ia h a d n o k n ow l edg e of t h e di st ri ct cou rt’ s bif

u rca ti on , V e o lia m u s t st i l lpr ov e th a t it w a s p reju d i cedi n ord er to s ho w t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d it s di s c r e t i o n. See, e .g., O ’ D el lv. Herc u les Inc. , 904 F . 2d119 4, 120 2 ( 8th C i r. 199 0) . E vi den ce of prej u di ce i s l acking. A f t er M ali n f

i l e d it s m o t i o n f

o ra t t o r ne y’ s fe e s , Veo l i a w as g ive n s uf f i c i e nt o p p o r t u n it y— fo u r t e e n d a y s — t o r e v ie w a n dc h a ll e n g e th e q u a n t u m o f a t t o r n e y ’s fe e s c l ai m e d b y M ali n, and i n fac tdi d s o . Fur t he r , V e o l i a di d no tr e que s t , i n a ny of its plea d in g s c h a llen gin g M a l i n ’ s attorn ey ’ s fee s, a h ea ri n g o r ex tra ti m e to c hall e nge t he e vi de nt i ary pr e di c at e f o rM ali n’ s a t t o r ne y’ s fe e s c l ai m s . As s uc h, w e ca n n ot sa y th a t V eo l i aw a s p reju d i cedbythe distri ct cou r t’s d e c isionto b i furca te qu a n tu m , an d , acco rd i n gly, th e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s d is c r e tio n inb ifu r c a tin g . E v e n h e r e , V e o lia ’ s b r ie f d o e s n o t id e n t i f ys p e c ific pro bl em s w i t h t he di st ri c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng on quant um , c hoos i ng i nst ead (i n an al lor n ot h i n g ap proach ) to foc u s on w h et h er qua n t u m shou l d h ave been proved Case: 09-30377 Document: 00511046141 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/09/2010N o. 09- 30377

5 up att r i a la n dwh e t h e rt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e di n b i f u r c a t i n gl i a b i l i t ya nd q u a n tu m . I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or th e foreg oin g re a son s, w e a ff i rm the distri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t. A F F IR M E D . Case: 09-30377 Document: 00511046141 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/09/2010N o. 09- 30377

6 E . G R A D YJO LL Y , C i r c ui tJudge, s pec i al l y c onc urr i ng: I c onc ur, butonl y f

ort he f oll ow i ng r eas on: the def endantdi d notpr es erve its o bje c tio n to th e d e n ia l o f its r ig h tfu l c la im u n d e rt h e p r e tr ia l o r d e rt o h a v e a ll da m ages, i n cl u d in ga ttor n ey’ s f ees, t ri ed i n t h e l i abili t y ph ase of t h e act i on und ert he s t andards and r ul es appl i c abl e t o thatpr oc ee di ng. Case: 09-30377 Document: 00511046141 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/09/2010