Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLC

Filing 325

ORDER granting 322 Motion to Vacate 312 Judgment on Attorney Fees by Judge William J. Martinez on 01/24/2017. (cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 10-cv-2516-WJM-KLM
AURARIA STUDENT HOUSING AT THE REGENCY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMPUS VILLAGE APARTMENTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE ATTORNEYS’ FEE JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court’s on the Defendant’s “Unopposed Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(5) Motion to Vacate the Attorneys’ Fee Judgment [Docket # 312].” (ECF No. 322
(“Defendant’s Motion”).)
Having considered the motion, the Court FINDS and ORDERS as follows:
1.

On February 3, 2015, an amended merits judgment was entered against

Defendant, Campus Village Apartments, LLC (“Campus Village”). (ECF No. 260.) On
September 24, 2015, Campus Village’s Rule 50 motions were denied. (ECF No. 286.)
2.

Campus Village appealed the amended judgment and the order on the

Rule 50 motions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. (See ECF
No. 287 (Notice of Appeal).)
3.

Plaintiff subsequently moved for an award of its fees and costs under the

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a). (See ECF No. 302.)

4.

On August 5, 2016, the Court issued an Opinion and O rder on the motion

for fees and costs, granting the motion in part and denying it in part. (ECF No. 311.)
5.

On August 8, 2016, the Court entered a judgment (the “Fee Judgment”)

awarding certain fees and costs to the Plaintiff. (ECF No. 312.)
6.

On December 15, 2016, the Court of Appeals vacated the merits

judgment. See Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village
Apartments, LLC, -- F.3d -- , 2016 WL 7260600 (10th Cir. 2016). (See also ECF Nos.
313, 314.)
7.

The Tenth Circuit’s mandate issued on January 6, 2017. (See ECF No.

8.

Under Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court

317.)

may vacate a judgment if that judgment “is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (emphasis added).
9.

When a fee judgment was based upon a merits judgment that is later

vacated, the fee judgment is also properly vacated under Rule 60(b)(5). See Flowers v.
So. Regional Phys. Svcs., Inc., 286 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2002); Cal. Med. Ass’n v.
Shalala, 207 F.3d 575, 577–78 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Since the f ee award is based on the
merits judgment, reversal of the merits removes the underpinnings of the fee award.”);
Mother Goose Nursery Schools, Inc. v. Sendak, 770 F.2d 668, 675–676 (7th Cir. 1985)
(losing party at district court is not “forced into the ludicrous position of appealing fee
awards they might otherwise choose not to challenge in order not to be faced with a fee
award . . . if the underlying action is reversed”); RMA Ventures California v. SunAmerica

2

Life Ins. Co., 576 F.3d 1070, 1976 (10th Cir. 2009) (Lucero, J., concurring ) (“If we were
to reach the merits and reverse the district court’s decision, however, there is little doubt
that RMA would be entitled to relief from the subsidiary attorneys’ fee judgment.”);
12-60 Joseph T. McLaughlin, et al., Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 60.46 (2016)
(“Rule 60(b)(5) authorizes a district court to grant relief from an attorney’s fee award if
the underlying merits judgment that was the basis for the fee award is vacated on
appeal.”).
10.

Rule 60 requires that motions to vacate be made “within a reasonable

time[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Here, Defendant made its motion shortly (less
than two weeks) after the Tenth Circuit’s mandate vacating the merits judgment was
filed with the Clerk of Court. (See ECF No. 317.) The Court finds the motion was made
within a reasonable time. See Cal. Med., 207 F.3d at 579; Ass’n for Retarded Citizens
of Connecticut, Inc. v. Thorne, 68 F.3d 547, 553 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that a “time lag
of less than a month” was “not unreasonable” under Rule 60(b)(5)).
11.

Plaintiff does not oppose this motion or the relief sought.

12.

In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that relief under Rule

60(b)(5) is warranted. The merits judgment on which the Fee Judgment was predicated
has been vacated, and Campus Village has moved for relief from the Fee Judgment
within a reasonable time.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Unopposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) Motion to Vacate
the Attorneys' Fee Judgment [Docket # 312] (ECF No. 322) is GRANTED, and the Fee
Judgment (ECF No. 312) is hereby VACATED, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5).

3

Dated this 24th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

4