FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT DE CEM B ER 16, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1209 4 N on -A rg um en t C ale nd ar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-20237 -CV -A SG MAUREEN O’ BRIEN, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ABB DE INC., a fore ign corporation licensed to do b usiness in Florida, f.k.a . ASEA Brown Bo ve ri, In c., f.k.a . ABB Po wer T&D Po wer Ent erp ris es , Inc ., a.k .a. T&D Ent erp ris es , Inc ., a.k .a. ABB T&D Ent erp ris es , Ltd ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Ap peal from the Un ited S tates D istrict C ourt for th e Sout hern Distr ict of F lorida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 16, 200 5) Be fo re C A RN ES , M A R C U S an d P R Y OR , C ir cu it Ju dg es . PE R C URIAM :2

M a ur e e n O ’ B r i e n a

pp eals the district court’ s entry of sum m ary j udgm ent on her claim s for open account, ac count stated, and q u an t u m m eruit and the court’ s order
aw ar din g pr ev ai lin g- pa rty f ee s and c ost s, pur suant t o apr ovi sio n inthe pa rti es ’
w ri tte n c ontra ct , to A BB DE, In c. (“ ABB ”)
. O n a ppe al , O ’ Br ie n a sse rt s ( 1) the dis tr ic t cour

t pre m at ur el y gr an te d AB B’ s m oti on for sum m ar y j udgm en t pr ior

to the start of dis co ve ry , an d (2 ) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by e nte ri ng s um

m ar y j udgm en t on he r cl ai m s ba se d onthe e xis te nc e of a w ri tte n contra ct
. I n he r br ie f, she a lso r eque sts thi s C ourt “ to s ta y

e xe cu tio n” of

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s aw ar d of f ee s and c ost s, pe ndi ng
ou r de ci si on on he r ch al le ng e to th e su m m ary jud gm en t. Aft er c a r e f u l re vi ew, we dis m iss the ap pe al as to the sum m ar y j udgm en t, ba se d on our

la ck of j ur isd ic tio n, a nd
w e af fi rm the or de r aw ar din g f

ee s and c ost s. It i s wel l-s et tl edth atab se nt th e fi li ng of a ti m el y no ti ce of ap pe al (“NOA”), we la ck j ur isd ic tio n ov er an ap pe al
. W oode n v. Bd
. of Re ge nts of

U niv
. S y s. of

G a. , 247 F. 3d 1262, 1272 (1 1th Ci r. 2001 ); Bo gle v. O range Co unty Bd
. of Co unty Co m ’ rs , 162 F. 3d 653, 660 (1 1th Ci r. 1998 ); Z ipp er er ex re l. Z ipp er er v. S ch
. Bd
. of

S em ino le County , 111 F. 3d 84 7, 849 (11th Cir. 1997). T hus, as a f eder al co u rt of lim ited j ur isd ic tio n, w e m

ust de te rm ine sua spon te w he the r w e ha ve j ur isd ic tio n. W oode n, 247 F. 3d a t 12 71; se e al so C ad et v. Bu lge r, 377 F.3d 11 73, 117 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4)3

(“ Fe de ra l c ourts are obl iga te d to in qu ire int o su bj ec t- m at te r j ur isd ic tio n su a spon te whenever it m ay be lacking.” ( quot ation om itted)). The pro ced ur al hi st or y

rel ev an t t o o urjuri sd ic ti on al ana ly sis is str ai ght fo rw ar d. O ’ Br ie n f ile d this ac tio n inthe Ci rc uit Co urt of the E le ve nthJud ic ia l C ir cu it, in an d fo r Mi am i- D ad e Co unty , a nd A BB r em ove d th e ca se to fe de ra l c ourt. Pu rsua nt t o ABB’s m ot io n, t he di st ric t co ur t en te red su m m ary jud gm en t o n J un e 1 4, 2 00 4. On tha t sam e da te , in a dif

fe re nt o rd er , the c ourt e nte re d f ina l j ud gm en t an d c los ed the
cas e . I ti s un di sp ut e d t ha t : ( 1) a tt ha tp oi nt , p ur su a nt F e d. R
. App . P
. 4 ( a ) ( 1) ( A) , O’ Brien had 30 day s, or until July 14, 2004, in which to fi l e h er NOA , s ee Fed. R. A pp. P
. 4( a) (1 )( A ) (p ro vid ing tha t N O A in a ci vil c as e w he re the U nit ed S ta te s is not
a pa rty must be f

ile d w ith in 3 0 day s a ft er the j udgm en t or

or de r ap pe al ed

f ro m is
en te re d) ; and ( 2) O ’ Br ie n di d no t f ile he r N O A , or

m ove f or a n e xte nsi on o f tim e to do so , du rin g t ha t 3 0- da y pe rio d. Ther eafte r, on July14, 2004, AB B filed a verified m otion for attorney s’ fee s
an d c ost s, se ek ing $41 , 256. 00 i n f ee s and $ 1, 970. 56 in cost s, pur suant t o th e pa rt ie s’
w ri tte n c ontra ct w hic h pr ovi de d fo r an aw ar d of “ pr ev ai lin g pa rty ” fe es . O n Ju ly 26, 2004 , w h i c h w a s 4 1 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t ry o f s u m

m a ry j u d g m e n t , O ’ B r i e n fi le d a
me mo r a n du m i n o p p o s i t i o n t o A B B ’s f e e s a n dc o s t s r e q u e s t
. I n t h i s me mo r a n du m, O’ Brien, inter alia, (1) challenged the district court’ s entry of sum m ary j udgm ent asFor this propositi on O’B rien c ited CNA Fin. Corp. v. B rown, 162 F .3d 1334 (11th Cir. 1 1998), which w e find inapposite. That case invol ved whether, following a c ourt-anne x ed ar bitration awa rd , a lit ig ant c ou ld r e qu e st a tr ia l de nov o outs ide of the 30 -d ay

pe ri od fo r f ili ngsu c h a

re qu e st, wh e re a llo wi ngthe lit ig ant t o do so wo uld “ fu rt he r t he e nd s o f j us tic e .” I d. B e c a us e , unli ke the tim e limit for f iling a N OA, the limitations period in CNA Fin. wa s not j u ri s d ictional, we a ffirme d the district court’s a llowance of the late -filed motion. 4 prem ature; (2) asserted that the wr itten c ontract upon which the district court relied in entering summ ary

j udgm ent allowed for her equitable claim s to proceed; (3) stated tha t c ouns el ha d no t a

ppe al ed the sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or t actic al , a lbe it er

ro ne ous,
re as ons; a nd ( 4) sum

m ar ily m en tio ne d th at

if the c our t c onsi de re d the iss ue s of f ee s, it shou ld a lso “ ex te nd the ti m e fo r re vie w of the e ntire cas e, de nov o, on e qui ta ble gr ou nd s b ecau se th e ‘end s o f jus ti ce’ so req ui re.” 1 O n F eb ru ar

y 24, 2005 , the m ag istra te j udge to w hom the m oti on f

or f ee s and
co sts w as as sig ne d issue d a Rep ort and R ec om m en da tio n ( “ R& R” ), r ec om m en din g tha t A BB ’ s m oti on b e gr an te d in pa rt
. T he m ag istra te j udge r ec om m en de d a w ar din g $24, 477. 00 i n f

ee s and $ 1, 970. 56 in co st s. I n he r or de r, the m ag istra te j udge observed that counsel’ s reasons for not appealing from the summ ary

j udgm ent wer e not r el ev an t t o th e iss ue of

A BB ’ s e nti tle m en t t o f

ee s and c ost s. I n af

oo tn ote , the
m ag i s t ra t e ju d g e s t at ed : “ Pl ai n t i ff ar g u es t h at i f t h e De fe n d an t i s aw ar d ed at t o rn ey’s fe es , the Co urt sh oul d e xte nd P la int if f’ s ti m e to f

ile anot ic e of

appe al
. T his iss ue is not pr es en tly r ipe a nd w ill not be co nsi de re d he re . P la int if f m ay m ak e anappr opr ia te5

m oti on i f at tor

ne y ’ s fe es ar e aw ar de d. ” (E m pha sis a dde d)
. I t i s un dis put ed tha t, pr ior to f ili ng h er N O A , O ’ Br ie n di d no t f

ile a nythi ng f

urthe r in the dis tr ic t c ourt. O n M ar ch15, 2 005, the dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the R& R, the re by

gr an tin g ABB ’ s m otion for fe es and costs in p art. T hereaf ter, on April 11, 2005, O ’ Brien filed her NO A, enum erating that she wa s appealing “ the j udgm ent of the Un i t ed St at es District Court Southern D istrict of Florida entered on March 15, 2005 in the abovecap ti on edcas e.” O ’ Br ie n no w a tte m

pts to ch al le nge the Jun e 14, 200 4 su m m ar y j udgm en t on
num er ous gr ound s. W e co nc lud e tha t w e la ck j ur isd ic tio n to co nsi de r he r ar gum en ts.

“ The tim ely

filing of a notice of appeal is ‘m andatory and jurisdictional.’ If the notice is no t t im el y

fil ed , th e ap pe ll at e co ur t i s wi th ou t ju r i s d i c t i on to he ar t he ap pe al .” A dvanc ed E sti m at ing Sy s. , In c. v. Ri ne y , 77 F. 3d 1322 , 1323 (1 1th Cir. 1996) (quot ing G ri ggs v. P ro vid en t C onsu m er D isc
. Co
. , 459 U
. S. 56, 61, 103 S
. Ct
. 400 , 403, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1982)). While it is true, as O’ Brien urges, that a district court
m ay e xte nd the ti m e fo r fi lin g the N O A , fr om our c ar ef ul r ev ie w of

the r ec or d, it

is clear that O’ Brien never m oved for, and the dis trict court never granted her, such an
ex te nsi on. S ee F ed
. R. App. P
. 4( a) (5 ) (e num er at ing r equir em en ts f or m oti on f or extension of tim e). A ccordingly , her April 11, 2 0 0 5 NOA wa s untim ely to appealIn addition to being untimely , O’B rien’s N OA is fac ially insufficient to cha lleng e the 2 order of summary

judgme nt, which is not desig nated as the “orde r appe aled f rom.” F eder al Rule of Appellate Proc edure 3 g overns the r equire d contents of a notice of a ppeal a nd provides, inter a lia, that th e no tic e “ de signate the jud g me nt, or de r, or pa rt the re of a pp e a le d f ro m. . . .” F e d. R. Ap p. P. 3(c) . Her e, O’ Br ien’s NOAstates she is appe aling “the judg ment of the United States District Court Southern District o f Fl o ri d a entered on Mar ch 15, 2005 in the above -ca ptioned case .” Eve n afte r l i b er ally construingher N OA, we are unable to extrapolate a n intent to appeal f

rom the summary judgme nt. I n fac t, our revie w of O’ Br ien’s memora ndum in opposit ion to AB B’ s motion for fee s and c os ts make s c le ar t

hat, at th a t po int

in t he dis tr ic t c ourt

pr oc e e din g s, O’ B ri e n, a t a min imum, suspected that she could not appea l the s ummary judgme nt due to the time bar w e discussed a bove. We make this infere nce f rom that portion of the opposition memo ra n d u m in which her attorney states that he made a tactica l, albeit err oneous, dec ision not t o appea l the summary judgme nt order pr e vio us ly

e nte re d. Thus , in a dd iti on to be ing un tim e ly , O’ B ri e n’ s N OAis f a c ia lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o c ha lle ng e the summa

ry jud g me nt.
6 from the June 14, 2 004 o rder of summ ary j udgm ent and we dism iss that po rtion of her ap pe al
. 2 A s f or O ’ Br ien’ s r em ai nin g c la im , w e af fi rm the a w ar d of

f ee s and c ost s because O ’ Brien’ s argum ent on thi s poin t consist s solely of requesting us “ to stay
ex ec uti on” of

the a w ar d of

f ee s and c ost s, pe ndi ng o ur dis posi tio n of

the appe al a s to the summ ary

j udgm ent. G iven our dis m issal of the ap p ea l fr o m the summ ary j udgm en t, tha t arg um en t i s m oot
. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the a w ar d of fe es an d c ost s. DISM ISSED IN P AR T A ND AF FIRMED IN P AR T.