Case Name: Melissa LANCASTER; Tim Lancaster, Appellants, v. SHEFFLER ENTERPRISES, d/b/a Mc-Donalds; Leonard Sheffler; Pat Cox; Scott Perkins; Steve Cornelson; Jon Palmer; Doug Davenport; Randy Boyer; Josh Bryant; Harold Kidwell; Brad Stephens; James Everle; Scheffler Family, L.L.L.P.; Defendants, American and Foreign Insurance Company; Royal Insurance Company of America; Royal Surplus Line Insurance Co., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-27
Citations: 56 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 02-3007
Parties: Melissa LANCASTER; Tim Lancaster, Appellants, v. SHEFFLER ENTERPRISES, d/b/a Mc-Donalds; Leonard Sheffler; Pat Cox; Scott Perkins; Steve Cornelson; Jon Palmer; Doug Davenport; Randy Boyer; Josh Bryant; Harold Kidwell; Brad Stephens; James Everle; Schef-fler Family, L.L.L.P.; Defendants, American and Foreign Insurance Company; Royal Insurance Company of America; Royal Surplus Line Insurance Co., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Melissa LANCASTER; Tim Lancaster, Appellants, v. SHEFFLER ENTERPRISES, d/b/a Mc-Donalds; Leonard Sheffler; Pat Cox; Scott Perkins; Steve Cornelson; Jon Palmer; Doug Davenport; Randy Boyer; Josh Bryant; Harold Kidwell; Brad Stephens; James Everle; Schef-fler Family, L.L.L.P.; Defendants, American and Foreign Insurance Company; Royal Insurance Company of America; Royal Surplus Line Insurance Co., Appellees.
No. 02-3007.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2003.
Decided Feb. 27, 2003.
Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal following the district court's refusal to reconsider its order awarding the insurers — in the Lancasters' unsuccessful garnishment action — the full amount of the insurers' requested costs and fees. The Lancasters had moved for reconsideration on the basis that Johnston v. Sweany, 68 S.W.3d 398 (Mo.2002) (en banc) (per curiam) specifically limited fee awards to expenses directly related to the garnishment, and excluded fees resulting from litigation of coverage issues. The court denied reconsideration, concluding that Johnston directed courts to separate fees related to coverage and fees related to garnishment to the extent practicable, but that in this case division was not practicable because the fees related to coverage issues were deeply intertwined with fees related to garnishment.
We conclude that the district court's award was not a clear abuse of discretion. See Computrol, Inc. v. Newtrend, L.P., 203 F.3d 1064, 1072 (8th Cir.2000). Johnston requires only that the fees be limited to the extent practicable, see Johnston, 68 S.W.3d at 405, and the court found that division was not practicable. Thus, we reject the Lancasters' argument that the district court failed to heed the majority opinion in Johnston.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and the denial of the motion ro reconsider.
A true copy.
. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Missouri.