Rafael Coppola v. Karpathoes, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00824-ELH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999959007]. [16-1006]

Appeal: 16-1006

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1006

RAFAEL COPPOLA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
DYLAN
CLARK;
EVAN
G.
FORD;
ZAC
TRAUTMAN;
TROY
M.
GREENSFELDER; MAGGIE DESMOND; LARS N. NOLEN; KIRBY MARTIN;
TYLER WASSERMAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KARPATHOES, INC., d/b/a Fratellis Italian Restaurant; GEORGE
SAKELLIS; ROULA RIGOPOULA SAKELLIS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00824-ELH)

Submitted:

September 20, 2016

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

November 1, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 16-1006

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Rockville, Maryland; Stephen
Springer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.

Jon

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1006

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Unsatisfied with an award of attorney’s fees and costs,
Rafael Coppola seeks to appeal the district court’s reduction in
the amount of his requested fees.

We dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
Parties

are

accorded

30

days

after

the

entry

of

the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

“[T]he timely

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.”

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

have a duty to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte.

We

See United

States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011).
On July 8, 2014, the district court entered judgment in
favor of Coppola based on Coppola’s acceptance of Defendants’
Offer of Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68.

Although the

court’s order did not “mechanically recite” the words “no just
reason for delay,” Crostley v. Lamar Cty., 717 F.3d 410, 420
(5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted), and although
an “explanation . . . undoubtedly would have been helpful” in
understanding the district court’s determination, Fox v. Balt.
City

Police

Dep’t,

201

F.3d

526,
3

532

(4th

Cir.

2000),

we

Appeal: 16-1006

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

conclude that the Rule 54(b) certification was unmistakable and
did not constitute an abuse of discretion. *
Contrary

to

Coppola’s

arguments,

“a

Rule

68

judgment

inherently possesses a significant degree of finality” due to
its self-executing nature.
1279

(6th

Cir.

1991).

Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273,
Additionally,

the

intended the Rule 68 judgment to be final.

parties

clearly

Coppola accepted

Defendants’ offer for the full amount that he sought, and the
remaining plaintiffs immediately amended the complaint to remove
Coppola as a party.

The fact that the judgment left unresolved

the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded Coppola
did not deprive it of finality.
Haluch

Gravel

Co. v.

Cent.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a); Ray

Pension

Fund

of

Int’l

Union

of

Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 134 S. Ct. 773, 777
(2014).
The district court resolved the attorney’s fee issue in an
order entered on February 19, 2015.

As the district court had

already entered a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Coppola
had 30 days from entry of the February 19 fee award to note an
appeal of that order.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

*

The notice

The judgment entered by the district court, titled “Order
of Judgment,” was on a form submitted to the court by counsel
for Coppola.

4

Appeal: 16-1006

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

of appeal was filed on December 31, 2015, well beyond the 30-day
period.
Because Coppola failed to file a timely notice of appeal
and

did

not

obtain

an

extension

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

5