Opinion ID: 1029483
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reply by the Plaintiffs, within 30 days

Text: of the date of this Order; First Reconsideration Order 2. Finally, the Order concluded by declaring that “[t]his case BE, and HEREBY IS, CLOSED.” Id. Two days thereafter, on December 20, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to extend the time for the filing of their attorney’s fee motion until January 17, 2007. This extension motion was premised on the assertion that, “[u]nder Local Rule 109 (1) and (2), Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Bill of Costs is due on January 2, 2007.” Cross v. Fleet Reserve Ass’n Pension Plan, No. 1:05-cv-00001 (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2006). The court granted the unopposed extension request the following day, directing that “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys Fees and Bill of Costs is due on January 17, 2007.” Cross v. Fleet Reserve Ass’n Pension Plan, No. 1:05-cv-00001 (D. Md. Dec. 28 21, 2006) (the “Extension Order”). Soon thereafter, however, on January 8, 2007, the defendants filed their notice of appeal from the First Reconsideration Order, incorrectly perceiving it to be an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The plaintiffs filed their motion for attorney’s fees on January 16, 2007, explaining that their supporting memorandum would follow. On January 22, 2007, the defendants filed an opposition to the motion, asserting, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had waived their attorney’s fee claim by failing to file a supporting memorandum by January 17, 2007. The plaintiffs replied on January 26, 2007, contending that, under Local Rule 109.2.a, the defendants’ January 8, 2007 notice of appeal served to reset the briefing schedule on the attorney’s fee issue. Local Rule 109.2.a, if applicable here, would accord the plaintiffs fourteen days after the mandate on that appeal to file their supporting memorandum. On March 26, 2007, we dismissed as interlocutory the defendants’ effort to appeal from the First Reconsideration Order. Our mandate on that appeal issued on April 17, 2007, and the plaintiffs submitted their supporting memorandum on the attorney’s fee motion nine days later, on April 26, 2007. The defendants responded to the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fee memorandum on May 11, 2007. In addition to briefing the merits of the fee claim, the defendants reasserted their timeliness 29 contention, particularly with respect to legal services rendered prior to the Summary Judgment Order of September 28, 2006. The court, in its Second Reconsideration Opinion of July 3, 2007, concluded that the plaintiffs had waived their attorney’s fee claim, explaining that [b]y failing to comply with the schedule dictated by Court’s December 18, 2006 Order, as extended by the Court on December [21], 2006, the Plaintiffs waived their claim for attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, their motion for attorneys’ fees will be denied. Second Reconsideration Opinion 17.