CLEVELAND CONSTRUCTION INC v. STELLAR GROUP INCORPORATED et al

Filing 215

ORDER granting 197 Motion to Alter Judgment; granting 198 Bill of Costs; denying 210 Motion for Attorney Fees; and denying 211 Bill of Costs. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 4/3/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A - Order of January 28, 2019) (tlf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for
the use and benefit of
CLEVELAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Plaintiff,

*
*
*

vs.

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-179 (CDL)

*

STELLAR GROUP, INC. and LIBERTY *
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
Presently

pending

before

the

Court

are

Cleveland

Construction, Inc.’s (“Cleveland”) motion to alter the judgment
(ECF No. 197) and bill of costs (ECF No. 198) and Stellar Group,
Inc.’s (“Stellar”) renewed motions for attorneys’ fees (ECF No.
210) and costs (ECF No. 211).1

Cleveland’s motion seeks to add

prejudgment interest to the judgment.
that

request.

Accordingly,

Stellar has no objection to

Cleveland’s

motion

to

alter

the

judgment is granted, and the judgment shall be amended such that
in addition to the amount in the previous judgment, Cleveland shall
recover an additional $83,001.16 in prejudgment interest.

The

Court further finds that for purposes of recovering its costs
pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1), Cleveland is deemed the prevailing

1

Stellar seeks costs pursuant to its contract with Cleveland and not
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).

1

party.

See Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354 (11th Cir. 1995)

(“Usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the
prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d).”) (quoting Untied
States v. Mitchell, 580 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1978))). Moreover,
Stellar did not object to Cleveland’s bill of costs seeking
$24,704.37.

Accordingly,

Cleveland’s

bill

of

costs

seeking

$24,704.37 is granted and that amount shall also be added to the
judgment.
The

resolution

explanation.

of

Stellar’s

motions

requires

more

The Court’s interpretation of the provision in the

parties’ Subcontract that authorizes the recovery of attorneys’
fees and costs by Stellar differs from Stellar’s interpretation.
See Order 6 (Jan. 28, 2019), ECF No. 207 (attached as Appendix A
for ease of reference) (permitting Stellar to recover “attorneys’
fees that it can demonstrate arise from its successful enforcement
of the Subcontract and/or successful pursuit of remedies for a
default);

id.

at

7

n.3

reconstruct its cost claim).

(instructing

Stellar

to

similarly

At least for now, Stellar is stuck

with the Court’s interpretation.

The Court notified the parties

of its interpretation and provided Stellar with the opportunity to
reformulate its motions to comply with the Court’s interpretation
of the Subcontract.

Stellar’s response in effect acknowledges

that in light of the general jury verdict, it cannot establish its
attorneys’ fees claim under the Court’s interpretation of the

2

contract.
Given

And it made no effort to amend its motion for costs.

this

failure

to

carry

its

burden

of

establishing

its

entitlement to attorneys’ fees or costs under the Subcontract, the
Court must deny Stellar’s motions.

The Court understands that the

general verdict apparently impedes Stellar’s ability to make the
requisite showing, but Stellar is at least partially the author of
its own misfortune given that it had an opportunity to object to
the verdict form but did not do so.

Stellar’s renewed motions for

attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 210) and costs (ECF No. 211) are denied.
The

Clerk

shall

enter

an

amended

judgment

in

favor

of

Cleveland and against Stellar in the total amount of $1,288,765.53,
which consists of the original judgment plus prejudgment interest
and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of April, 2019.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3