Guzall, et al v. Romulus, City of, et al

Filing 54

OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Return of Funds. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (Loury, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARIANNE D. GUZALL,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 13-11327
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
CITY OF ROMULUS, et al.
Defendants.
___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RETURN OF FUNDS
Marianne D. Guzall (“Mrs. Guzall”), a former employee of Defendant City
of Romulus, filed this lawsuit against Defendants as a qui tam action alleging
violations of the False Claims Act, and as an individual action alleging violations
of her rights under federal and state law.1 On June 3, 2014, Defendants moved to
disqualify Raymond Guzall III, Mrs. Guzall’s husband, as Plaintiff’s counsel. This
Court granted Defendants’ motion in an Opinion and Order entered September 3,
2014. (ECF No. 35.) On October 9, 2014, the Court entered an amended decision
staying the case for thirty days “to permit Plaintiff to obtain new counsel, or to
allow any party to file a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit for permission to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.”
The United States of America has declined to intervene in this action. (ECF No.
8.)

1

(ECF No. 38 at 19-20, citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 5(a)(2).) The Court
indicated that “[i]f no such motion is filed within that time, the stay will be
dissolved. If such a motion is filed, the stay will continue until the motion is
resolved by the court of appeals.” (Id.) After the Court denied a subsequently
filed motion for reconsideration by Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiff paid the filing fee for the appeal.
On January 30, 2015, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order sua
sponte dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Guzall v. City of
Romulus, No. 14-2543 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2015). As the court held: “[O]rders
disqualifying counsel in civil cases, like orders disqualifying counsel in criminal
cases and orders denying a motion to disqualify in civil cases, are not collateral
orders subject to appeal as ‘final judgments’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291.” Id. at 2 (citing Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 440
(1985); In re Mechem, 880 F.2d 872, 873 (6th Cir. 1989)). On February 19, 2015,
new counsel entered an appearance on the district court docket on behalf of
Plaintiff and, on March 27, 2015, this Court issued a Scheduling Order. In the
interim, on March 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a return of the monies
paid for the appeal. (ECF No. 50.)
In her motion, Plaintiff quotes the following language from this Court’s
decision denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration:
2

. . . because the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure extend the time
for seeking an appeal due to the filing of a Rule 60 motion, see Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(vi), 5(a)(2), the Court is extending the stay in the
event Plaintiff intends to file a motion for permission to appeal.
(ECF No. 50 ¶ 1, quoting ECF No. 42 at 4.) Plaintiff interprets this language as
indicating that the Court “conferred authority allowing Plaintiff to file her appeal
by leave.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Because the Sixth Circuit held that a trial court cannot
provide authority for the appeal and declined to hear the appeal, Plaintiff believes
that she is entitled to a refund of the appellate court filing fee. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.)
This Court included the above quoted language because Plaintiff repeatedly
indicated in an earlier motion that she might file a motion for reconsideration
and/or an interlocutory appeal with respect to the decision disqualifying Mr.
Guzall. (See ECF No. 36.) Thus, as quoted earlier, this Court had stayed the case
for thirty days “to permit Plaintiff to obtain new counsel, or to allow any party to
file a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for
permission to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.” (ECF No. 38
at 19-20, emphasis added.) The Court has never granted Plaintiff permission to
appeal, nor could it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292; see also Fed. R. App. P. 5. The Court
expects counsel to know and understand the rules governing proceedings in the
federal courts.
Plaintiff and/or her counsel chose to file an appeal of an interlocutory order
and to pursue her appeal in the manner that she did. The fact that the Sixth Circuit
3

concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal does not entitle
Plaintiff to a return of the appellate court’s filing fee. Plaintiff cites no authority
for such a request. Moreover, allowing refunds under these circumstances would
encourage interlocutory appeals by litigants dissatisfied with district court rulings.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Return of Funds is DENIED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 13, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 13, 2015, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

4