Ingram et al v. AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc.
Filing
55
ORDER denying 54 MOTION for Reconsideration re 53 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Motion to Strike filed by AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc.. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/26/2016. (pts)
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
*
MARK INGRAM, Individually and
as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Kellie Ingram,
*
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
v,
l:14-cv-142
*
AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION,
*
INC.,
*
*
Defendant.
*
ORDER
Presently
before
reconsideration.
The
the
Court
motion
is
questions
time limit for requesting attorneys'
Civil
Procedure
54(d)(2)
applies
defendant's
whether
the
motion
for
fourteen-day
fees under Federal Rule of
to
attorneys'
fees
awarded
under Georgia law by a district court sitting in diversity. The
Court,
once again, finds that it does.
I.
Georgia
law
defendant shall
if
the
that,
recover attorneys'
plaintiff
subsequently
68(b)(1).
provides
BACKGROUND
rejects
suffers
a
under
conditions,
settlement
judgment.
O.C.G.A.
Defendant made a timely settlement offer,
rejected the offer,
a
fees and litigation expenses
reasonable
an adverse
certain
offer
§
and
9-11-
Plaintiff
and Plaintiff subsequently lost at summary
judgment
before
this
Court.
The
Court
judgment decision on March 1, 2016.
The
Federal
requesting
attorneys'
fourteen
days
54(d)(2),
but
requesting
however,
§
Rules
after
68's
Civil
to
file
entry
of
judgment,
§
fees.
require
motion
parties
sets
previous
with
Fed.
9-11-68 (b) (1)
A
summary
46.)
Procedure
a
its
no
version
31,
(2005).
2016,
Defendant
filed
presumably under the
thirty-day
provision
a
fourteen-day time
limit
Defendant
did
file
Plaintiff
and
(Doc. 53.)
of
opinion that
governed.
(Doc.
not
denied
imposed by Rule
a reply brief.
Defendant's
§
motion
for
fees
the
§
on
9-11-
Plaintiff
it exceeded the
Court
for
9-11-68,
O.C.G.A.
50.)
54(d)(2).
The
for
(Doc.
52.)
agreed with
attorneys'
fees
Defendant now moves for reconsideration.
II.
LEGAL
STANDARD
"In considering a motion for reconsideration,
balance the need for
Ass'n Local
30,
1423,
No.
2013) .
a court must
finality and judicial economy against the
need to render just decisions."
Jan.
Proc.
deadline
motion
opposed Defendant's motion on the grounds that
Ga.
Court
Civ.
R.
the
provided a thirty-day window to request fees.
9-11-68(b)(1)
March
(Doc.
fees
O.C.G.A.
attorneys'
of
entered
Collins v. Int'l Longshoremen's
2:09-cv-093,
Generally,
2013 WL
a motion
393096,
at
*1
(S.D.
for reconsideration
should only be granted if there is (1) an intervening change in
controlling law;
(2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need
to
correct clear error or prevent manifest
Deposits Conduit,
22735,
2008
accord
Bryant
2010);
Merrett v.
WL
WL
LLC v.
5289095,
at
Jones,
696
*1
reconsideration
*l-2
F.
Liberty Mut.
at
is
(M.D.
an
Insured
Servs.,
No.
Index Powered Fin.
5691349,
v.
injustice."
(S.D.
Supp.
Ins.
Fla.
Fla.
2d
Co.,
extraordinary
Mar.
1313,
No.
Sept.
LLC,
14,
1320
2008);
(N.D.
3:10-cv-1195,
19,
2013).
remedy
to
07-
Ga.
2013
Because
be
employed
sparingly, the movant must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing
nature
decision.
Voter
Inc., No.
31,
to
induce
Verified,
6:09-cv-1969,
2011) .
the
Inc.
Court
v.
to
reverse
Election
2011 WL 3862450,
Sys.
at *2
its
prior
&
Software,
(M.D.
Fla. Aug.
A motion for reconsideration should not be used to
present arguments already heard and dismissed,
legal theories
or to offer new
or evidence that a party could have presented
before the original decision.
S.E.C.
v.
Mannion,
No.
l:10-cv-
3374, 2013 WL 5999657, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 12, 2013).
III.
In
its
motion,
warranted for
three
Defendant
reasons.
ANALYSIS
argues
First,
that
Defendant
54 does not apply to § 9-11-68. Second,
even if Rule 54 does apply,
fees would contravene
reconsideration
argues
that
is
Rule
Defendant contends that
denying the motion for attorneys'
its spirit.
Third,
Defendant argues that
even if Rule 54 does apply and denial would not contradict its
spirit,
Local
Rule
54.2(c)
provides
thirty
days
for
filing
motions
for' attorneys'
fees.
The
Court
finds
none
of
these
arguments persuasive.
A.
The
Court
begins
with
Plaintiff's
argument
does not apply to fees requested under O.C.G.A.
Federal
courts
have
that
Rule
54
§ 9-11-68(b)(1).
concluded that the attorneys'
fee provision
of § 9-11-68 is a substantive rule of law that applies to claims
based
on
Georgia
law
and
diversity jurisdiction.
580 F.
Supp.
Inc. v.
(S.D.
Ga.
Mar.
No.
30,
under
the
federal
courts'
Wheatley v. Moe's Southwest Grill, LLC,
2d 1324,
Abraham,
heard
1327-29
CV
(N.D.
210-157,
2012).
Ga.
2012
2008); Gowen Oil Co.,
WL
1098568,
Plaintiff argues,
at
however,
*2,
n.4
that no
federal court has held that the fourteen-day deadline imposed by
Rule 54
applies
to attorneys'
fees
awarded under §
9-11-68.
This Court suspects the lack of case law has more to do with the
certainty of the answer than the difficulty of the question.
The
civil
answer,
procedure
of
course,
covers
the
is that
issue
when a federal
in
dispute,
it
rule
of
governs.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S.
393,
398
(2010) .
The Rule Enabling Act grants
the Supreme
Court the power "to prescribe general rules of practice and
procedure
and rules
of evidence
for
cases
in the United
States district courts" provided that "such rules shall not
abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right."
§ 2072.
Because
the
Federal
Rules
of Civil
28 U.S.C.
Procedure
are
promulgated
under
the
authority
force of federal statute.
1,
13
(1941) .
Thus,
Federal
Rule
of
dispute
will
prevail
that the federal
Enabling
Plumer,
Act
380
virtue
of
Procedure
over
a
they
constitutional
460,
471
have
Wilson & Co.,
the
which
state
Act,
Supremacy
covers
procedural
Clause,
issue
rule
Shady
terms
Grove,
a
in
provided
restrictions."
(1965);
the
312 U.S.
the
rule "transgresses neither the
nor
U.S.
this
Sibbach v.
by
Civil
of
of the
Hanna
v.
U.S.
at
559
406-07.
Rule 54 does not transgress the Rules Enabling Act because
it governs only the mechanical method by which attorneys'
are awarded.
See Shady Grove,
559 U.S. at 407.
fees
A rule will not
transgress the Act as long as it regulates only the process of
enforcing rights and duties under substantive
law and does not
alter the underlying rights and duties themselves.
U.S. at 14; see Shady Grove,
559 U.S. at 407.
Sibbach, 312
Although Rule 54
might appear to have altered the Defendant's substantive rights,
it has
must
not.
take
Rule
54
states
to properly
clearly the
enforce
the
steps that
substantive
each party
rights
granted
them by the State of Georgia. See Shady Grove,
559 U.S. at 407-
08.
to
That
it
gave
the
parties
fourteen
days
enforce
that
right, rather than thirty days (or more), does not mean that it
abridged the substantive rights of the parties.
See id.
A procedural rule might become outcome determinative in any
case, but that is not reason enough to declare that it abridges
a
substantive
right.
solely on whether a
insufficient
is
in
some
^outcome determinative.'"
might
avail
however,
within
itself
of
failed to
its
sense
at
the
466-69.
outcome
Focusing
of an issue
"every procedural
Id. at 468
right
to
is
variation
(emphasis in original).
attorneys'
follow that path.
However,
fourteen-day time
had
limit
fees.
Admittedly,
the choice between Rule
determinative.
the
U.S.
Rule 54 provided a defined path by which Defendant
the proceeding,
outcome
380
rule determines
because
In this case,
of
Hanna,
54
by
would not have been outcome determinative.
this
and §
Defendant
set
at
Defendant,
9-11-68
filed
Rule
is
a
motion
the
54,
Thus,
stage
choice
Defendant,
not
Rule 54, is to blame for abridging its substantive right.
Neither does Rule
has
54 transgress the Constitution.
a "long-recognized power
rules
for
federal
courts
...
to prescribe
even though
some
of
at 473. This power flows
housekeeping
those
inevitably differ from comparable state rules."
Congress
rules
Hanna,
will
380 U.S.
from "the constitutional provision for
a federal court system" as augmented by the necessary and proper
clause.
It
Id.
outlines
at
472.
the
Rule
timeline
54 exemplifies a housekeeping rule.
by
which
parties
are
to
make
their
post-judgment motions for various costs and ensures the orderly
conclusion of
Constitution
the
case.
"would
be
To
to
declare
disembowel
Rule
54
either
a
violation
the
the
Constitution's
grant of power over federal procedure or Congress'
exercise that power in the Enabling Act."
of
attempt to
See id. at 473-74.
The
Court
deadline
holds,
for filing
for attorneys'
therefore,
attorneys'
that
Rule
54's
fees applies
fourteen-day
to an application
fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68.
B.
The
Court
now
moves
to
the
Defendant's
second
argument-
that denying attorneys'
fees contravenes the spirit of Rule 54.
Defendant
the
argues
that
fourteen-day provision)
informed of the
(Doc. 54 at 2
2d 1206,
1210
motion
faith
on
claim before the time
Rule
54(d) (2) (b)
for appeal
has
(citing Leidel v. Ameripride Servs.,
(D.
Kan.
2004)).)
offer,
purely procedural
would
(the
elapsed."
322
F. Supp.
Because Plaintiff had notice of
fees penalty from the moment they denied
settlement
delay
of
is "to assure that the opposing party is
the possible attorneys'
Defendant's
purpose
violate
Defendant
grounds
the
due
spirit
argues,
to
of
a
denying
the
sixteen-day good
the
rule.
The
Court
disagrees.
The best place to start when interpreting the Federal Rules
of
Civil
Creative
Procedure
Non-violence
starting point
its language.
Civil
for
construed,
the
v.
490
U.S.
730,
See
739
Cmty.
(1989)
interpretation of a statute
instructs
ensure
themselves.
for
("The
is always
The first rule of the Federal Rules of
administered,
to
rules
Reid,
[the]
. . .").
Procedure
parties
is
the
and
the
Court
that
employed
just,
all
by
speedy,
rules
the
court
and
determination of every action and proceeding."
"should
and
be
the
inexpensive
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
fees
1.
Rule
54
mandates
that
. . . must be made by motion
"a
for
attorney's
. . . not later than 14
after the entry of the judgment."
(B) .
claim
Fed.
R. Civ.
P.
days
54(d)(2)(A)-
Construing Rule 54 as required by Rule 1, the Court finds
that it must apply Rule 54's terms.
In
addition
unambiguous,
254
to
the
fact
Connecticut
(1992)
(stating
that
Nat'l
that
the
language
of
v.
Germain,
503
Bank
"if
the
words
of
[a]
Rule
U.S.
of
Rule
demanded by Rule 1.
results
in
a
parties
were
just
on
54
falls
within
the
rules
of
is
249,
statute
unambiguous . . . [the] judicial inquiry is complete"),
application
54
are
a strict
construction
Following the timeline provided in Rule 54
determination
notice
and
had
of
the
equal
required under the Federal Rules.
action
access
to
because
the
both
deadlines
It also ensures a speedy and
inexpensive determination of the proceeding because it mandates
that
all
matters
relating
to
collecting
attorneys'
fees
completed in an efficient manner and without undue delay.
this
Court
has
54(d).
To
do
Federal
Rules
^guidelines'
Caribbean:
2003).
The
no
choice
otherwise
of
Civil
rather
Curse
but
would
adhere
the
to
establish
Procedure
than
of
to
actual
Black
are
the
a
Pearl
precedent
"more
rules."
timeline
what
(Buena
Thus,
of
that
you'd
Pirates
Vista
are
of
Rule
the
call
the
Pictures
c.
Defendant's
supersedes
days
final
Federal
after
argument
Rule
judgment
54
to
is
that
and provides
file
motions
Local
for
for
Rule
54.2(c)
a period of
attorneys'
thirty
fees.
In
relevant part, Local Rule 54.2 provides:
(b)
The
motion
Federal
Rule
with
Clerk
the
shall
of
of
be
Civil
the
filed
pursuant
Procedure
Court
and
to
54(d)(2)
served
under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 upon the
parties against whom the award is sought.
(c) Within 30 days (or such other period as
the Court may prescribe) after entry of the
final judgment, the movant shall file and
serve
a
detailed
specification
and
itemization of the
requested award,
with
appropriate
affidavits
and other
supporting
documentation.
LR 54.2(b)-(c),
Local Rule
two reasons.
SDGa.
54.2(b)
First,
does
not
supersede
Federal
the plain text of Local
Rule
Rule
54 for
54 provides
that the motion for fees must first be filed pursuant to Federal
Rule
54,
that
is,
within
fourteen
days
after
judgment.
The
thirty-day period described in Local Rule 54.2(c) applies not to
the initial motion for attorneys'
documentation needed for
fees, but to any supplemental
an award of attorney fees.
Second,
a
local rule cannot supplant a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
Brown v. Crawford County, Ga.,
1992).
While
each
district
960 F.2d 1002, 1008-09
court
may
create
(11th Cir.
local
rules
governing practices not covered in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure,
these
rules
must
be
consistent
with
the
federal
1l
rules.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
Proc.
83(a)(1).
54.2 were susceptible to the
Thus,
even
reading Defendant
if
Local
employs,
Rule
such a
reading is not allowable.
IV.
For
the
reasons
CONCLUSION
stated
above,
Defendant's motion to reconsider.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,
September,
(Doc.
the
Court
DENIES
54.)
Georgia,
this £>\ffi^ day of
2016.
HONOHABXp^. RANDAL HALL
UNITEDSTATES
DISTRICT
JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
10
the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?