Document: 489 U.S. 169 109 S.Ct. 987 103 L.Ed.2d 146 Myles OSTERNECK and Guy-Kenneth Osterneck, etc., Petitionersv.ERNST & WHINNEY. No. 87-1201. Argued Nov. 29, 1988. Decided Feb. 21, 1989. Syllabus As part of the merger a company that they owned with another company, petitioners exchanged stock in their for other company. In approving merger, allegedly relied on company's financial statements prepared by respondent accounting firm. Subsequently, concluded certain those misrepresented condition. They then filed an action Federal District Court against others, alleging violations Securities Exchange Act 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, state common law. While returning verdict some defendants, jury found favor defendant. After judgment was entered, timely motion prejudgment interest. still pending, notice appeal from Ultimately, court granted interest ordered be amended to include The Appeals held petitioners' alter or amend under Civil Procedure 59(e), which rendered ineffective Appellate 4(a)(4), provides if party files 59(e) before disposition "shall have no effect." also rejected contention Thompson v. INS, 375 384, 84 397, 11 404, required it hear because had several actions indicated final appealable notwithstanding pending Held: Petitioners' constituted 4(a)(4) ruling motion. Pp. 173-179. (a) Prejudgment is compensation due plaintiff. A postjudgment discretionary involves kind reconsideration matters encompassed within merits intended apply. 174-176. (b) To conclude helps further important goal avoiding piecemeal appellate review judgments. Moreover, preventing such resolved, conclusion gives added assurance will benefit district court's plenary findings regard factual legal issues subsumed decision grant Pp.177-178 . (c) On record, correctly declined apply reasoning Thompson, supra, excuse failure file effective appeal. By its terms, applies only where has performed act that, properly done, would postpone deadline filing his received specific judicial officer this been done. That not case here. 178-179. 825 F.2d 1521 (CA11 1987), affirmed. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Laurie Webb Daniel, Atlanta, Ga., petitioners. Gordon Lee Garrett, Jr., respondent. Justice KENNEDY 1 any "under 59 [of Rules Procedure] judgment," case, we decide whether after entry constitutes renders If question affirmative, are asked nevertheless falls so-called "unique circumstances" exception requirement announced 404 (1964) (per curiam). 2 * history complex but can stated summary way. September 1969, Cavalier Bag Company merged into E.T. Barwick Industries, Inc. (Barwick Industries). Osternecks, owners here, approved Industries. transaction, Industries Ernst Whinney, independent certified public firm 3 Sometime later, Industries' two years preceding actual 1975, §§ 10(b) 20 ch. 48 Stat. 891, 899, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t (1982 ed. Supp. IV), 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 (1975), Georgia Petitioners named among directors officers (E.T. Barwick, B.A. Talley, M.E. Kellar). 4 nearly 10 pretrial proceedings, finally went trial 1984. returned Kellar, Talley amount $2,632,234 compensatory damages federal securities laws Whinney. 5 Immediately announced, moved orally assessed Talley. Judge, wishing argument at point, directed submit writing days. He stated: 6 "The entered particular soon possible, be—the amended." App. 5. 7 same day, January 30, 1985. Id., 6-7. February 11, 1985, petitioners, directed, written 8-9. 8 During March various parties notices cross-appeal challenging 30 judgment. Of importance 1, while 34. 9 did rule until July date, order stating shall "AMENDED" reflect "additional award [$945,512.85 in] claim." 44. 9, document captioned "AMENDED JUDGMENT," "is hereby adding thereto [the] interest," "remain every respect." 45. one additional 31, 46-47. But, vital fact purposes failed Whinney dismissed lack jurisdiction, finding filed. Osterneck Inc., 1987). F.2d, 1525-1527.1 contention, based our White New Hampshire Dept. Employment Security, 455 445, 102 1162, 71 325 (1982), merely addressed issue collateral main cause action. 1526. curiam ), upon 1527-1528. sought certiorari, 486 1042, 108 2032, 100 618 (1988), resolve conflict Courts over Cf. Jenkins Whittaker Corp., 785 720 (CA9 1986). We agreed consider, necessary, erred entertaining supra. now affirm. II 12 "alter judgment" served days effect. Together, these work implement finality 28 1291 opportunity dispose all motions seek what otherwise might appear A. 13 U.S., 451, S.Ct., 1166, set general framework determining request attorney's fees 42 1988 considered "reconsideration merits." citing Browder Director, Illinois Corrections, 434 257, 98 556, 54 521 (1978). fit description raised "collateral action," requiring inquiry wholly "separate merits," id., 451-452, 1166-1167. noted, moreover, injury giving rise action, "uniquely separable" underlying controversy. 452, 1166. 14 revisited last Term. Buchanan Stanships, 485 265, 1130, 99 289 allowance costs 54(d) concluding not, 58 draws "sharp distinction" between costs. 268, 1132. observed White, "raises action." Budinich Becton Dickinson Co., 196, 1717, 178 motion, rather related when remains resolved. acknowledged earlier holding "all but" answered question. reiterate matter, plaintiff's traditionally regarded element awarded prevailing party. 199-201 200-201, 1720 1721. 16 Under precedents, correct 59(e). First, repeatedly [plaintiff's] complete compensation." West Virginia United States, 479 305, 310, n. 2, 107 702, 706, 93 639 (1987); see General Motors Corp. Devex 461 648, 655-656, 10, 2058, 2062, 76 211 (1983). Thus, unlike fees, law were therefore judgment, Budinich, 1720-1721, Second, costs, does "rais[e] Buchanan, 1132; nor require deciding how much should granted, must examine—or reexamine—matters For example, consider number factors, including necessary compensate plaintiff fully injuries, degree personal wrongdoing defendant, availability alternative investment opportunities plaintiff, delayed bringing prosecuting fundamental considerations fairness.2 See Norte Co. Huffines, 416 1189, 1191-1192 (CA2 1969), cert. denied sub nom. Muscat 397 989, 90 1121, 25 396 (1970); City National Bank American Commonwealth Financial 608 F.Supp. 941, 943 (WDNC 1985); Fox Kane-Miller 398 609, 651 (Md.1975); generally Blau Lehman, 368 403, 414, 82 457, 403 (1962) ("[I]nterest recovered according rigid theory money withheld, given response fairness"). These intertwined significant way primary well extent damages. apply.3 18 Our States Hollywood Motor Car 458 263, 3081, 3082, 73 754 (1982) ("[T]he policy Congress embodied [28 1291] inimical decisions"). Because necessity determine appealable. adopt today interest, wrongfulness defendant's conduct full damages, equity bearing litigation. Such information may useful understanding liability do anticipate result undue delays Any evidence relating available time tried, able reasonable verdict. III 19 contend even heard rationale (1964). petitioner new receiving entered. Although untimely, specifically declared " 'in ample time.' 385, 397. reliance statement, Court's original later denial trial. petitioner's filed, light circumstances," reversed. 387, 399. statement timely, felt fairness untimely ibid. applicable here made Court, taken Clerk, Appeals, led them believe timely. reviewing claims, exception, concluding: 21 "At ever affirmatively represented Osternecks either court." 1528. 22 declining which, 23 24 It so ordered. notice. 1528-1529. intend specify factors offer list lower cases, demonstrate different matter right. could argued entitled right, reexamination relevant deemed sense used term. However, mandatory less than serves "remedy [underlying] 200, 1721, decision. said Term Budinich: "[W]hat preservation conceptual consistency status [type motion] 'merits' 'nonmerits,' operational predictability overall application [finality requirement] 1291." Ibid. "Courts litigants best bright-line rule, accords traditional understanding," ibid., implicates

Category: 8