Document: 455 U.S. 445 102 S.Ct. 1162 71 L.Ed.2d 325 Richard H. WHITE, Petitionerv.NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al. No. 80-5887. Argued Nov. 30, 1981. Decided March 2, 1982. Syllabus Petitioner filed an action in Federal District Court alleging that respondent New Hampshire Department of Employment Security failed to make timely determinations certain entitlements unemployment compensation, thereby violating a provision the Social Act, Due Process Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ultimately, approved parties' consent decree entered judgment accordingly. Approximately four one-half months after entry judgment, petitioner motion requesting award attorney's fees under Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act 1976, 1988, which authorizes award, court's discretion, prevailing party "as part costs" constitutional civil rights litigation various kinds. The granted denied respondents' subsequent vacate decree. Appeals reversed Court's decision 1988. It held petitioner's for constituted "motion alter or amend judgment" Rule Procedure 59(e) was governed by Rule's requirement such be served not later than 10 days judgment. Held: is applicable postjudgment requests Pp. 450-454. (a) has generally been invoked only support reconsideration matters properly encompassed on merits. Since 1988 provides awards "prevailing party," entitlement requires inquiry separate from merits—an cannot even commence until one "prevailed." Nor can fairly characterized as element "relief" indistinguishable other elements. 451-452. (b) Application fee neither necessary nor desirable promote finality, judicial economy, fairness. Many orders may issue course action, but it unclear are "final judgments." If were applicable, lawyers predictably would respond entering motions conjunction with nearly every interim ruling. No useful purpose encouragement this practice, over "finality" connection within 10-day period. limit could also deprive counsel time negotiate private settlements questions, thus generating increased questions. discretion conferred court regard will denial cases unfairly surprises prejudices affected party. 452-454. 629 F.2d 697, remanded. E. Larson, York City, petitioner. Marc R. Scheer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Concord, N. H., respondents. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 case arises request question whether oramend judgment," subject timeliness standard Rules Procedure.1 2 * This began when White suit against (NHDES) its Commissioner. claimed 503(a)(1), Clause Constitution United States, Alleging federal jurisdiction 28 1343, he sought declaratory injunctive relief "such further equitable just." App. 15. His complaint did specifically fees. 3 Following certification class claim Act.2 Pending appeal NHDES Appeals, however, parties signed settlement agreement. then remanded Court, gave accordingly January 26, 1979. 4 Five wrote respondent's counsel, suggesting they meet discuss meeting appears have held. On June 7, 1979, approximately final formally requested. 5 In hearing had surprised fees.3 He averred understood decree, silence matter, implicitly waived any award. White's asserted different understanding. Apparently determining agreement effected no waiver,4 sum $16,644.40. 6 Shortly thereafter, moved argued, effect, thought total liability fixed knowing might still established. vacate. 7 appeal, First Circuit 697 (1980). limit. F.2d, at 699. 8 holding did, recognized provided costs."5 But declined follow recent Fifth Circuit6 treated "costs" 54(d)7 588—Rules contain explicit bars. Despite language reasoned kind contemplated 54(d) 58. reached conclusion looking 1920, specifies assessed clerk 54. found all "capable routine computation" day's notice. 702. By contrast, must made judge. Further, case, affect substantially parties. 9 distinguishable Hutto v. Finney, 437 678, 98 2565, 57 522 (1978), fees, taxable State. Hutto, reasoned, narrow States Eleventh Amendment immunity costs dismissed argument "a collateral independent claim" adjudicated separately Because Courts conclusions about applicability fees,9 we certiorari resolve conflict.10 We now reverse. II A. 11 added 1946. Its draftsmen clear aim. According accompanying Advisory Committee Report, adopted "mak[e] district possesses power" rectify own mistakes period immediately following judgment.11 authority do so arisen Boaz Mutual Life Ins. Co. York, 146 321, 322 (CA8 1944). their report, intended "to care situation arising Boaz."12 B 12 Consistently original understanding, courts E.g., Browder Director, Illinois Dept. Corrections, 434 257, 556, 54 521 (1978). raises legal issues main cause action13—issues never apply. 13 Section party." Regardless requested, therefore require Unlike relief, allowed compensation injury giving rise action. Their uniquely separable proved trial. See U.S., 695, n.24, S.Ct., 2576, n.24. 14 As recently stated: 15 "[A] unlike does imply change merely seeks what due because is, therefore, provisions 59(e)." Knighton Watkins, 616 795, 797 (1980).14 III 16 emphasized need prevent fragmented appellate review unfair surprise nonprevailing defendants. 701-704. These important concerns. think application either 17 yield harsh unintended consequences. actions, especially those involving "relief nature prove efficacy time," "many litigation." Bradley Richmond School Bd., 416 696, 722-723, 94 2006, 2021, 40 476 (1974). Yet sometimes forfeit right if file each "final" order. Cautious protect interests, practice serve purpose. Neither 18 so, actually generate questions—a result ironically odds economy.15 19 "in [the] discretion" court. believe Moreover, remain free adopt local rules establishing standards filing claims fees.16 And avoid piecemeal appeals promptly deciding Such normally permit considered together merits.17 IV 20 For reasons stated opinion, reversed, consistent opinion. 21 So ordered. 22 BLACKMUN, concurring 23 I agree much said concur, course, wish, gone step further. 24 notes, ante, 450, existing conflict among regarding Three Circuits these 59(e), reach Two 59(e). sixth three Rules. 450 n.9. today settles far inapplicability concerned. leaves unanswered 58 "this unnecessary our disposition case." Ante, page, n.17. 25 answer question, hold apply requests. them should shall yet another decide before correct procedure evaluating settled 26 note, happily, least touches upon ultimate answer, 454, n. 17, observes rules. saying, comes close approving position taken Eighth Obin 9, Int'l Assn. Machinists Aerospace Workers, 651 574 (8th Cir. 1981). approach general problem. Thus, approve matter settled, eliminating inconsistency between views Fifth, Sixth, Seventh hand, view other. provides: "(e) Motion Alter Amend Judgment "A judgment." Civ. 76-71 (NH, 15, 1977), amended, Dec. 16, 1977). Transcript Hearing Plaintiffs' (Aug. 21, 1979), 56, 68-69. prejudgment "attempts" waiver "nugatory." Id., 75. pertinent "[i]n proceeding enforce sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 title, title IX Public Law 92-318 [20 1681 seq.], . court, allow party, reasonable costs." 795 "(d) Costs "Except express therefor statute rules, unless otherwise directs taxed reviewed court." Unless defined statute, 54(d). Alyeska Pipeline Service Wilderness Society, 421 240, 95 1612, 44 141 (1975). states part: "Entry delayed taxing rather applications Johnson Snyder, 639 316, 317 (CA6 1981); Bond Stanton, 630 1231, 1234 (CA7 1980); supra, 797-798. Like Tenth squarely Glass Pfeffer, 657 252 (1981). third position: "collateral 574, 582 451 982, 101 2313, 68 839 Notes 1946 Rules, U.S.C., p. 491; F.R.D. 433, (1946). Ibid. argues "collateral" "independent" character his conclusively established Sprague Ticonic National Bank, 307 161, 59 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939). power pursuant several years Rejecting arguments impermissible reopening underlying petition reimbursement represented "an supplemental modification decree." 170, 781. passage presented bar Although decided then-applicable equity, suggested same new Procedure. 169, n.9, 781 posture Sprague. plaintiff produced "benefit" commonly available others similarly situated. she "neither avowed herself representative establish[ed] fund participate," id., 166, 779, her lawsuit stare decisis effect inured benefit asserting similar claims. benefits accrued them—not, defendant—that difference cases, controls us. Nonetheless, extent: establishes questions inherently necessarily subsumed Gaslight Club, Inc. Carey, 447 54, 66, 100 2024, 2032, 64 723 (1980) (a sufficiently merits Title VII "solely obtain work done state proceedings"). There implicit decisions "appealable" prior See, e.g., Memphis Sheraton Corp. Kirkley, 614 131, 133 Hidell International Diversified Investments, 520 529, 532, n.4 1975); see 583-584. appealable remaining Conversely, outstanding recognition "appealable." 584. "piecemeal" undesirable, ample deal infra, n.16. additional reason finding inapplicable requests, amici urged negotiations raise inherent interest attorney client. defendant likely concerned liability, suggested, offer lump-sum settlement, indifferent distribution "damages" "attorney's fees." pursuing negotiations, continues, lawyer allocation seek Accordingly, argues, routinely deferred sensitive concern raises, decline rely proffered basis. considering enter negotiated good demand know both damages situations difficult ethical plaintiff's attorney, reluctant resolution ever counsel. 583 (recommending adoption uniform rule requiring twenty-one ); 798, n.2 (practices governing "can handled best rule" ). jurisdictions procedures applications, there valid limits. us expressly constitute 58, specify barrier "costs." address it. note costs, treated. n.2. retain deny unreasonable tardiness.

Category: 5