Opinion ID: 746222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Subsequent Interpretation of the Injunction

Text: 47 Arrow's principal challenge on cross-appeal concerns the district court's subsequent interpretation of its judgment and order at the contempt hearing. While Arrow acknowledges that the district court's finding of contempt for violating its order is not yet final because the district court has not ascertained the amount of damages or attorneys' fees to be awarded to Forschner, Arrow maintains that the predicate to the court's finding of contempt, namely the district court's interpretation of the injunction, is a proper subject of a cross-appeal from the judgment itself. We disagree. 48 Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to final decisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It is a well-established rule of appellate jurisdiction that a final order is one that conclusively determines the rights of the parties to the litigation, leaving nothing for the district court to do but execute the order. In re Fugazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769, 775 (2d Cir.1992). Thus, where liability has been decided but the extent of damages remains undetermined, there is no final order. See Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62, 68, 68 S.Ct. 972, 976-77, 92 L.Ed. 1212 (1948) ([T]he requirement of finality has not been met merely because the major issues in a case have been decided and only a few loose ends remain to be tied up--for example, where liability has been determined and all that needs to be adjudicated is the amount of damages.). 49 Moreover, an order adjudging a party in contempt unaccompanied by sanctions is not final and therefore is not appealable. See In re Fugazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d at 775; Dove v. Atlantic Capital Corp., 963 F.2d 15, 17 (2d Cir.1992); see also In re Irving, 600 F.2d 1027, 1031 n. 1 (2d Cir.1979); Comptone Co. v. Rayex Corp., 251 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir.1958) (per curiam) ([N]o penalty has been imposed, and the contempt order remains merely a finding, without judgment thereon, subject to modification, prior to judgment. Since the contempt finding ... is not a final decision, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § ... 1291.) (citation omitted). 50 The district court's contempt order in the case before us does not meet this standard of finality. The order of contempt stated Plaintiff may submit affidavits with respect to its cost of prosecuting the contempt within ten days. Defendant will have ten days to comment with respect to the reasonableness of those costs, and a finding will be made thereafter. The language clearly contemplates an assessment of damages, and Arrow acknowledges in its brief that the amount of damages and attorneys fees has yet to be determined. Thus, the district court's contempt order is not an appealable final decision because no assessment of sanctions has occurred. 51 Nor does the district court's order qualify as an appealable order under the collateral order doctrine. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457-58, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (To be immediately appealable, the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). 52 Accordingly, so much of the cross-appeal as seeks relief from the order holding Arrow in contempt is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 53 We have examined all of the parties' remaining arguments on appeal and cross-appeal and find them to be without merit.