Finnegan et al v. Myers et al
Filing
409
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 381 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Related to Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorney Fees (Renewed) by Defendants Reba James, Regina McAninch, Jennifer McDonald, Laurel Myers. The Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorney Fees (DE # 358 ) is STAYED during the pendency of the appeal. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/12/2016. (lhc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROMAN FINNEGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LAUREL MYERS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:08-CV-503
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Renewed Motion to Stay
Proceedings Related to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorney Fees,
filed by the defendants on October 14, 2016.
(DE #381.)
reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
For the
The Plaintiffs’
Petition for Attorney Fees (DE #358) is STAYED during the pendency
of the appeal.
BACKGROUND
On November 23, 2015, the plaintiffs, Roman Finnegan, Lynnette
Finnegan, Tabitha Abair, Johnathon Abair, and Katelynn Salyer
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by counsel, filed their Petition for
Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
(DE #358.)
On
December 7, 2015, the defendants, Laurel Myers, Regina McAninch,
Reba
James,
and
Jennifer
McDonald
(collectively
the
“State
Defendants”) filed their Motion to Stay Proceedings Related to
Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorney Fees. (DE #360.) On January 12,
2016, Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein issued an order
granting the motion to stay and ordering the State Defendants to
file any response to the motion for attorney fees within fourteen
(14) days after the Court resolved the State Defendants’ Rule 59
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment by Reducing Damages.
(DE #372.)
On September 30, 2016, this Court denied the Rule 59 motion.
(DE
#378.)
The State Defendants filed the instant Renewed Motion to Stay
Proceedings Related to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorney Fees on
October 14, 2016.
(DE #381.)
Plaintiffs filed their response in
opposition on October 17, 2016.
(DE #382.)
filed a reply on October 24, 2016.
The State Defendants
(DE #383.)
The motion to stay
is thus ripe for adjudication.
DISCUSSION
Following a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, a court may, in its
discretion,
“allow
the
prevailing
party
attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . . .”
.
.
.
a
reasonable
42 U.S.C. § 1988; see
also King v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 410 F.3d 404, 412 (7th
Cir. 2005).
protected
by
“A prevailing party in an action to vindicate rights
statutes
such
as
42
U.S.C.
§
1983
and
by
the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments should ordinarily recover an
2
attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an
award unjust.” King, 410 F.3d at 413 (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
In making a determination on an award of attorneys’
fees, a court must look at many factors including the relative
merit of the case and the result obtained.
F.2d
29,
34
discretionary
(7th
Cir.
decision
1980).
that
Because
is
Terket v. Lund, 623
the
separate
fee
from
issue
the
is
a
underlying
judgment, a district court does not lose the power to rule on
attorneys’ fees motions once an appeal is filed.
Id.
In fact, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has indicated that piecemeal
appeals may be avoided in the majority of cases when district
courts “proceed with attorneys’ fees motions, even after an appeal
is filed, as expeditiously as possible.
Any party dissatisfied
with the court’s ruling may then file an appeal and [request]
consolidation
with
the
pending
appeal
of
the
merits.”
Id.
However, while Terket suggests that efficiency may be served in
most cases by resolving the fee issue prior to the resolution of
the appeal, there is no requirement that this process be followed.
Barrington Press, Inc. v. Morey, 816 F.2d 341, 343 (7th Cir. 1987).
In a concurring opinion, the Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple wrote
separately to emphasize the following:
our holding today leaves undisturbed the
settled law of this circuit that the matter of
attorneys’ fees need not be determined at the
time that a final, appealable judgment is
entered on the merits. The district court may
defer ruling on attorneys’ fees until a later
3
time and, upon entry of a separate judgment
addressing attorneys' fees, a separate appeal
may be taken to this court.
Id. at 344 (citing Exch. Nat’l Bank v. Daniels, 763 F.2d 286, 294
(7th Cir. 1985); Swanson v. Am. Consumer Indus., Inc., 517 F.2d
555, 561 (7th Cir. 1975)).
Here, the State Defendants argue that resolution of the
attorneys’ fees issue is premature because the case is “exceedingly
complicated” and the appeal involves a “significant number of
issues.”
(DE #381, p. 2.)
“[s]hould
the
Seventh
The State Defendants point out that
Circuit
find
in
favor
of
[the]
State
Defendants, even partially, the parties would have to reassess and
re-determine the proper fees.”
(Id.)
In response, Plaintiffs
argue that the Court should deny the motion to stay proceedings
because the case is not atypical in that “[t]his circumstance is
present in every post-trial determination of attorney fee petitions
where the non-prevailing defendants may appeal.”
(DE #382, p. 1.)
In reply, the State Defendants point to Barrington Press and assert
that “[i]f there was ever a case in which it would be most
efficient for the district court to stay determining fees pending
appeal, this would be the present case.”
(DE #383, p. 2.)
After due consideration, the Court agrees with the State
Defendants. The complexity of the issues likely to be presented on
appeal, coupled with the fact that the jury returned damages awards
for five individual plaintiffs spanning numerous separate claims,
4
makes staying the determination of the attorneys’ fees issue until
the appeal has been fully resolved the most efficient course of
action.
Depending on the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals, the individual plaintiffs may be found to be prevailing
parties on some claims but not others.
As a result, certain fees
and expenses would not be applicable to each plaintiff and/or every
judgment; thus, determining the attorneys’ fees issue once the
appeal has been finalized will prevent the possibility of the
parties and the Court having to reassess and recalculate the
propriety of such fees.
The Court finds that, in this particular
case, both judicial economy and the interests of justice are best
served by granting the State Defendants’ motion to stay.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Renewed Motion to Stay
Proceedings Related to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorney Fees (DE
#381) is GRANTED.
The Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorney Fees (DE
#358) is STAYED during the pendency of the appeal.
DATED: December 12, 2016
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
5
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?