Court Opinion

ID: 9411378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 18:00:50.204566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:06.471393
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20016        Document: 00516834316             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                            FILED
                                     ____________
                                                                                 July 26, 2023
                                      No. 23-20016                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                 Clerk
                                    ____________

   Paul Clarence Murphy, IV,

                                                                               Appellant,

                                            versus

   Edgefield Holdings, L.L.C.,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CV-1991
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         This appeal arises out of a dispute over the district court’s award of
   attorney’s fees against Paul Murphy and Morteza Naghavi. For the following
   reasons, we AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20016        Document: 00516834316              Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                          No. 23-20016

                                     I.     Background
           Naghavi filed a quiet title action against Edgefield Holdings, LLC
   (“Edgefield”). After removal, Murphy was substituted as counsel for
   Naghavi, and Edgefield asserted a counterclaim.                    Various disputes
   subsequently arose between the parties, and the district court admonished
   Murphy to strictly abide by its orders and observed that his conduct,
   alongside Naghavi’s claims, appeared to be in bad faith. Separately, Naghavi
   filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion for judgment on the
   pleadings as to Edgefield’s counterclaim, which the district court denied.
   Naghavi also failed to follow a discovery-related order.
           These and other events culminated in the district court issuing a show
   cause order to Naghavi. At a hearing, the district court found that Naghavi
   and Murphy had committed sanctionable behavior and failed to show good
   cause why the case should not be dismissed. It accordingly dismissed
   Naghavi’s claims with prejudice, entered final judgment, and ordered
   Naghavi to pay Edgefield attorney’s fees.
           Edgefield then applied for attorney’s fees against Naghavi and
   Murphy. Neither responded to the application. Rather, they appealed the
   district court’s final judgment. 1 The district court granted Edgefield’s
   application and determined that Naghavi and Murphy were jointly and
   severally liable for $17,410.91 in attorney’s fees and costs. Naghavi then
   moved to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 59(e), and alternatively to correct a clerical error per Federal Rule
   of Civil Procedure 60(a), to change the district court’s determination that
           _____________________
           1
             The clerk’s office dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution under 5th Cir.
   R. 42.3. Naghavi filed a motion to reinstate the appeal, which the clerk’s office denied.
   Naghavi then moved for reconsideration, which was also denied. See generally Naghavi v.
   Edgefield Holdings, L.L.C., No. 22-20531 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                               2
Case: 23-20016        Document: 00516834316                 Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                             No. 23-20016

   Murphy was jointly and severally liable for attorney’s fees and costs. The
   district court denied this motion, and Naghavi and Murphy subsequently
   appealed the district court’s orders granting attorney’s fees and denying the
   motion to alter or amend or correct a clerical error. 2
                                II.     Standard of Review
           The district court had diversity jurisdiction over this case under 28
   U.S.C. § 1332(a), and we have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28
   U.S.C. § 1291. We “review[] an award of attorneys’ fees for abuse of
   discretion,” applying clear error review to factual findings and de novo
   review to legal conclusions. LifeCare Mgmt. Servs. LLC v. Ins. Mgmt. Adm’rs
   Inc., 703 F.3d 835, 846 (5th Cir. 2013). In addition, we review for abuse of
   discretion a district court’s grant or denial of a Rule 59(e) motion, Fletcher v.
   Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 2000), as well as its denial of a Rule 60
   motion, NewCSI, Inc. v. Staffing 360 Sols., Inc., 865 F.3d 251, 263 (5th Cir.
   2017). Separately, we review a district court’s denial of a Rule 12(c) motion
   for judgment on the pleadings de novo. Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 529
   (5th Cir. 2004).
                                      III.      Discussion
           Before turning to the merits of Murphy’s contentions, we consider
   which, if any, of his arguments are properly before us.
   A.      Issues Not Raised in the First Appeal
           Murphy argues that (1) the district court erred in denying the Rule
   12(c) motion, and (2) Naghavi did not violate a discovery order, but, if he did,
           _____________________
           2
             While both Naghavi and Murphy appealed these orders, Naghavi failed to file a
   brief and was dismissed from this case for want of prosecution under 5th Cir. R. 42.3.
   Murphy filed a brief only on his own behalf, though his brief addresses issues relevant to
   both himself and Naghavi.

                                                  3
Case: 23-20016        Document: 00516834316              Page: 4      Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                         No. 23-20016

   any violation was justified.          However, we are bound by the “waiver
   doctrine,” which provides that issues that could have been raised on appeal
   but were not may not be reconsidered on remand by a district court. Med.
   Ctr. Pharmacy v. Holder, 634 F.3d 830, 834 (5th Cir. 2011). Importantly, the
   waiver doctrine “also prevents us from considering such an issue during a
   second appeal.” Lindquist v. City of Pasadena, 669 F.3d 225, 239 (5th Cir.
   2012).
            Nothing prevented Murphy from arguing in the appeal of the district
   court’s final judgment that the court erred by denying the Rule 12(c) motion
   or concluding that Naghavi had committed discovery violations. See id. at
   240. The basis for these arguments existed at the time the first appeal was
   filed, and Murphy could have submitted briefing on these points if he so
   chose. He did not do so, however. Rather, that first appeal was dismissed
   for want of prosecution, and no briefing on these issues was ever filed.
   Therefore, by virtue of Murphy’s failure to properly make such claims in that
   first appeal, we will not consider them in this second appeal. 3 See id.
   B.       Issues Not Raised Before the District Court
            In addition, Murphy (1) challenges the reasonableness and necessity
   of the attorney’s fees and costs awarded against him and Naghavi and
   (2) argues that a portion of those fees and costs were not attributable to a
   failure to obey discovery orders. However, we will “not address an argument
   raised by a party for the first time on appeal, even if it concerns the same issue
   (attorneys’ fees) unless it meets the plain error standard.” Forbush v. J.C.

            _____________________
            3
             Naghavi appears to have represented himself pro se for at least part of the first
   appeal. That does not affect our conclusion. Rather, Murphy filed the notice of appeal on
   Naghavi’s behalf, and, according to Naghavi himself, Murphy continued to advise him
   throughout his appeal, despite an apparent payment dispute and Murphy’s purported
   threat to withdraw.

                                               4
Case: 23-20016       Document: 00516834316           Page: 5     Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                      No. 23-20016

   Penney Co., 98 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir. 1996). Under this standard, where “no
   issue concerning the amount of fees due or the method of calculating the
   award was raised in the district court,” we will “not consider [the] issues not
   raised below unless they present a pure question of law or a refusal to do so
   would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Powell v. Old S. Life Ins. Co., 780
   F.2d 1265, 1268 (5th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted); see also U.S. ex rel. Wallace v. Flintco Inc., 143 F.3d 955, 971 (5th Cir.
   1998).
            Edgefield applied for attorney’s fees against Murphy and Naghavi,
   who failed to file any response to the application. While they did move to
   alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), or alternatively to correct a
   clerical error under Rule 60(a), this motion exclusively addressed the issue
   of whether the district court erred in ordering that Naghavi and Murphy were
   jointly and severally liable. Therefore, because Murphy did not contest the
   reasonableness, necessity, or calculation of these fees and costs before the
   district court, we will only consider his arguments on these issues if they raise
   a pure question of law or if refusal to assess the issues would result in a
   miscarriage of justice. Powell, 780 F.2d at 1268.
            Neither exception applies.      First, “[t]he determination of a fair
   attorney fee award is not a purely legal issue,” and as such Murphy’s
   arguments do not raise a pure question of law. Forbush, 98 F.3d at 822
   (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, Murphy fails to address how
   our refusal to assess these issues would lead to a miscarriage of justice. We
   “will not allow a party to raise an issue for the first time on appeal merely
   because a party believes that he might prevail if given the opportunity to try
   a case again on a different theory.” Id. Because Murphy fails to satisfy the
   plain error standard, we do not consider these arguments raised for the first
   time on appeal. See id.; Powell, 780 F.2d at 1268.

                                            5
Case: 23-20016      Document: 00516834316             Page: 6   Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                       No. 23-20016

   C.     Issues Not Properly Briefed
          Finally, Murphy reiterates his previous argument that he should not
   be held jointly and severally liable for attorney’s fees because the proposed
   final judgment and the district court’s final judgment only referred to
   Naghavi in the context of fees. However, appellants must provide “citations
   to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies” in
   support of their “contentions and the reasons for them.” Fed. R. App. P.
   28(a)(8)(A). Parties that fail to adequately brief an issue on appeal waive any
   arguments on that issue. See DeVoss v. Sw. Airlines Co., 903 F.3d 487, 489 n.1
   (5th Cir. 2018). To that end, parties that fail to provide citations or
   authorities in support of an issue waive their arguments.           See L & A
   Contracting Co. v. S. Concrete Servs., Inc., 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994).
          Murphy’s brief is devoid of any citations in support of his argument
   that the manner in which the proposed final judgment and district court’s
   final judgment discussed attorney’s fees precluded him from later being held
   jointly and severally liable for those fees. While he does cite case law relevant
   to the standards for Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(a) motions near this argument in
   his brief, he fails to provide “any relevant Fifth Circuit cases” that
   substantiate this particular contention. Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990
   F.3d 410, 414 (5th Cir. 2021). Therefore, we conclude that he has waived it
   on appeal. See id.; L & A Contracting Co., 17 F.3d at 113.
                                 IV.      Conclusion
          Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of
   attorney’s fees and denial of the Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(a) motion.

                                            6