Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/682/1143/278408/
Timestamp: 2020-02-22 17:20:28
Document Index: 350420816

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 19884', '§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 1988']

Harry J. Holmes, Plaintiff-appellee, v. J. Ray Mcdermott & Co., Inc., Defendant-appellant, 682 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1982) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1982 › Harry J. Holmes, Plaintiff-appellee, v. J. Ray Mcdermott & Co., Inc., Defendant-appellant
Harry J. Holmes, Plaintiff-appellee, v. J. Ray Mcdermott & Co., Inc., Defendant-appellant, 682 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1982)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 682 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1982) Aug. 9, 1982
A final judgment is one that "terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined." St. Louis Iron Mountain & Southern Railway v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24, 28-29, 2 S. Ct. 6, 8, 27 L. Ed. 638 (1883). No appeal lies from a finding of liability on the merits when the district court leaves undetermined the nature and scope of relief. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 96 S. Ct. 1202, 47 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1976). Thus we are faced with the legal question whether the lack of determination of the amount of attorney's fees left undetermined any of the "merits" or "scope of relief" in this case.
The United States Supreme Court has recently spoken indirectly to the question before us. In White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, --- U.S. ----, 102 S. Ct. 1162, 71 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1982), the court addressed the question whether a motion to award attorney's fees statutorily authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 19884 for an action brought under one of the Civil Rights Statutes was a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).5 The Court, in its determination that a request for attorney's fees was not covered by Rule 59(e), analyzed the relationship of an award of attorney's fees in civil rights suit to a determination on the merits and the scope of relief in such a case.
In White, the plaintiff moved for an award of attorney's fees under § 1988 more than ten days after the entry of a consent decree in a § 1983 suit. The defendant argued that the attorney's fees motion was not timely under Rule 59(e). The Court held that a motion for attorney's fees under § 1988 was not subject to Rule 59(e), and, therefore, could be made more than ten days after the entry of judgment. The Court reasoned that an award of attorney's fees under § 1988 was not integral to the main cause of action. Rather, the award was a collateral matter, independent of the merits of the case and uniquely separable from the cause of action to be proved at trial. White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, --- U.S. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 1165-66. The Court concluded:
The question whether a judgment is final when attorney's fees have been awarded but their amount has not been set has also been addressed in various circuit court decisions. The determination of finality has, as was the case in White, seemingly hinged upon a circuit court's analysis of whether the award of attorney's fees was, in a particular action, similar to an application for costs, Johnson v. Snyder, 639 F.2d 316 (6th Cir. 1981) (judgment final although amount of attorney's fees not yet determined), a part of the relief sought, Johnson v. University of Bridgeport, 629 F.2d 828 (2nd Cir. 1980) (judgment not final when amount of attorney's fees not yet determined), or a collateral or independent claim that is neither a part of the relief sought or costs. Obin v. District No. 9, International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 651 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1981) (judgment final although amount of attorney's fees not yet determined). See also White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, --- U.S. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 1165 n.9 (setting forth, circuit by circuit, the various rules relating to finality of the judgment absent a determination of the amount of attorney's fees).
This court has also had occasion to discuss the relationship of attorney's fees to the finality of an order for purposes of appeal. Jones v. Dealers Tractor and Equipment Company, 634 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981); Knighton v. Watkins, 616 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1980); Williams v. Ezell, 531 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1976); Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366 (5th Cir. 1971). In Jones and Knighton, we held, consistent with the Supreme Court's later decision in White, that Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is inapplicable to a request for attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Award Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We reasoned:
Thus, while we have not articulated in detail our rationale for holding that an undetermined amount of attorney's fees may pretermit a final judgment in some cases (Stacy) but not in others (Jones), the applicable rationale, as derived from pertinent case law, is clear. When attorney's fees are similar to costs (White) or collateral to an action (Obin), a lack of determination as to the amount does not preclude the issuance of a final, appealable judgment on the merits. When, however, the attorney's fees are an integral part of the merits of the case and the scope of relief, they cannot be characterized as costs or as collateral and their determination is a part of any final, appealable judgment. The final task for us, then, is to determine the appropriate characterization of the attorney's fees award in this maintenance and cure action.
Nor do we have the usual problem of what constitutes "costs" in the conventional sense. Cf. The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377 (19 L. Ed. 463). Our question concerns damages. Counsel fees were allowed in The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362, 379 (6 L. Ed. 111), an admiralty suit where one party was put to expense in recovering demurrage of a vessel wrongfully seized. While failure to give maintenance and cure may give rise to a claim for damages for the suffering and for the physical handicap which follows (The Iroquois, 194 U.S. 240 (24 S. Ct. 640, 48 L. Ed. 955)), the recovery may also include "necessary expenses." Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 371 (53 S. Ct. 173, 174, 77 L. Ed. 368).
Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 530, 82 S. Ct. 997, 999, 8 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1962) (emphasis added).
Unlike other judicial relief, the attorney's fees allowed under § 1988 are not compensation for the injury giving rise to an action. Their award is uniquely separable from the cause of action to be proved at trial. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 695 n.24, 98 S. Ct. 2565, 2576 n.24, 57 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1978).
White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, --- U.S. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 1165 (emphasis added).7 Here, in contrast, the award of attorney's fees to Holmes was an element of damages for McDermott's willful and arbitrary denial of maintenance and cure. Vaughan v. Atkinson, supra. The attorney's fees award, therefore, was not uniquely separable from the merits but was bound hand in hand with them. The jury was instructed to consider awarding attorney's fees only if it found that the denial of maintenance and cure was willful and arbitrary. Moreover, the maintenance and cure issue is the only one on which attorney's fees were awarded. Thus, the considerations that the Supreme Court found controlling in a motion for § 1988 attorney's fees do not apply here.8 Cf. Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d at 1367 (per curiam) (a motion for attorney's fees because of opponent's bad faith in prolonging litigation is a component of substantive relief, and, therefore, the motion must be made either before judgment or within ten days of judgment as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) provides:
McDermott's notice of appeal is timely only because the district court granted a thirty-day extension for McDermott to appeal. Holmes moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, but the district court denied this motion. The court thus implicitly concluded that McDermott's late notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (5)
We recognize that the Supreme Court stated in White that "fee questions are not inherently or necessarily subsumed by a decision on the merits." 102 S. Ct. at 1166, n.13. Vaughan v. Atkinson, supra, makes it clear, however, that attorney's fees in a maintenance and cure action are "subsumed by the merits." The conclusion that White reached on § 1988 attorney's fees requests does not establish a general rule on attorney's fees requests, nor does it dictate the result here with respect to attorney's fees awards made as an element of damages under maritime law. Moreover, the concern of the Court in White, that because in civil rights cases, there may be "many final orders," 102 S. Ct. at 1167, relating to "relief of an injunctive nature," id., it "may be unclear even to counsel which orders are and which are not 'final judgments,' " id., seems less persuasive here as this type of maritime suit does not contemplate injunctive relief or portend the issuance of numerous "final" orders
Our decision in Knighton v. Watkins, supra, differs from White only in holding that § 1988 makes attorney's fees an element of costs, and, therefore, motions for § 1988 attorney's fees are subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 58 on costs. The Supreme Court did not reach this issue. Knighton, like White, is concerned with the unique aspects of § 1988 attorney's fees. Thus, Knighton 's differences from White do not affect our analysis of this case