home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
oral arguments
news on
 mayerbrown.com
contact
 
SUPREME COURT DOCKET REPORT
OCTOBER TERM 2013
DECISION ALERT


October Term, 2013

January 15, 2014

DECISION ALERT
Today the Supreme Court issued one decision, described below, of interest to the business community.


Appealability—Finality of Decision Leaving Request for Contractual Attorney’s Fees Unresolved

Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, No. 12-992 (previously discussed in the June 17, 2013, Docket Report)

In Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a district-court decision that fully resolves the merits of the litigation, but leaves the award or amount of attorney’s fees authorized by statute to be determined, is a “final decision” that must be appealed within 30 days. Today, in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, No. 12-992, the Supreme Court held that this uniform rule applies regardless of whether the claim for attorney’s fees is based on a statute, a contract, or both. The Court also confirmed that this rule applies when the fee request includes non-attorney fees incurred in the litigation, such as expert-witness fees. Mayer Brown successfully represented the petitioners in this case.

Today’s decision is significant for the business community because it clarifies the procedures that must be followed by parties appealing a decision in cases involving claims for attorney’s fees, which are common in commercial litigation. Failure to follow these procedures may waive a party’s appeal of the decision on the merits.

The plaintiffs in this case alleged that the defendants failed to make required contributions to union-benefits funds. In their suit to collect the unpaid contributions, the plaintiffs also sought to recover certain attorney’s fees and auditor’s fees incurred in the litigation. The district court issued an initial decision resolving the merits of the claim for unpaid contributions but did not issue its decision addressing attorney’s fees and auditor’s fees until more than a month later. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the order resolving the motion for attorney’s fees, but not within 30 days of the earlier order resolving the merits of the unpaid-contributions claim.

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Kennedy held that the appeal was untimely as to the initial decision on the merits of the unpaid-contributions claim. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that attorney’s fees awarded under a contract, unlike fees authorized by statute, should be considered part of the merits and preclude the decision from becoming final until the fee request is resolved. The Court previously rejected that position when addressing a statutory fee award in Budinich, and today’s decision holds that the same rule applies regardless of whether a claim for attorney’s fees is based on a statute, a contract, or both. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Budinich should not apply to their fee request because it included certain auditor’s fees in addition to attorney’s fees, holding that the same rule applies for both attorney’s fees and non-attorney professional fees incurred in the litigation.

The lesson of today’s decision is clear: Parties seeking to appeal the merits of a district court’s decision must file their notice of appeal within 30 days of the court’s ruling on the merits, even if that ruling does not resolve a pending claim for attorney’s fees, or else their appeal of the merits will be dismissed as untimely.

Any questions about this case should be directed to Dan Himmelfarb (+1 202 263 3035) or Charles A. Rothfeld (+1 202 263 3233) in our Washington office.


Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice ordinarily distributes a Docket Report when the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and a Docket Report-Decision Alert when the Court decides such a case. We hope that you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful. We welcome feedback on them, which should be addressed to the general editors, Richard B. Katskee (at rkatskee@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3222) and Brian D. Netter (at bnetter@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3339)

Feel free to forward this message to anyone who you believe might be interested in the Decision Alert.

Please visit us at appellate.net

Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed.

 
 
© 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.