Northrop Grumman v. Ministry of Defense, et al

Filing 443

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion 426 for Attorney's Fees and Denying as Moot Defendant's Motion 437 for Relief Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on August 4, 2020. (AW)

Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 443 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIP
SYSTEMS, INC., formerly known as
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.

PLAINTIFF

v.

Civil No. 1:02cv785-HSO-RHW

THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE
REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [426] FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION [437] FOR RELIEF
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)
BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc.,
f/k/a Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., and now known as Huntington Ingalls
Incorporated’s (“Huntington Ingalls” or “Plaintiff”) Motion [426] for Attorney’s Fees
and Defendant The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela’s (“Ministry” or
“Defendant”) Motion [437] for Relief Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). The Court finds that Huntington Ingalls’s Motion [426] for Attorney’s Fees
should be denied, and that this renders the Ministry’s Motion [437] for Relief
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) moot.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 31, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
[406] recognizing and enforcing an arbitration award against the Ministry and
awarding Huntington Ingalls the net amount of the Tribunal’s award, post-award
interest, post-judgment interest, and “costs and fees.” Mem. Opinion [406]. On

1

Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 443 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 4

June 4, 2020, the Court entered a Final Judgment [425] in this case in favor of
Huntington Ingalls against the Ministry in the amount of “$137,977,646.43 . . . plus
costs and fees.” J. [425]. The Court made no specific finding in either the
Memorandum Opinion and Order [406] or the Final Judgment [426] that it was
awarding attorney’s fees.
Huntington Ingalls now seeks an award of $187,460.20 in attorney’s fees. Pl.
Mot. [426]. The Ministry has filed a Response [432] in Opposition which does not
challenge the attorney’s fees calculation, but argues that there is no statutory or
contractual basis for awarding attorney’s fees in this case. Def. Resp. [432] at 2. In
its Rebuttal [435], Huntington Ingalls argues that it is entitled to attorney’s fees
because the Ministry “unjustifiably refused to abide by the arbitral award.” Pl.
Rebuttal [435] at 2-3.
The Ministry has filed a Motion [437] seeking relief from the Court’s
judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). The Ministry contends that relief from Final
Judgment is warranted due to the “obvious error of law” in awarding attorney’s fees
when no statutory or contractual basis existed for doing so. Def. Mem. [438] at 4.
Huntington Ingalls responds that the Ministry’s Rule 60(b) motion was not filed
within a “reasonable time” and that the Court did not make any obvious errors in
law. Pl. Resp. [440] at 2-4. The Ministry counters that it promptly moved to correct
the Final Judgment following the filing of Huntington Ingalls’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees, and maintains that an award of attorney’s fees would constitute an
obvious error of law. Def. Reply [442] at 1, 5.

2

Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 443 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 4

II. DISCUSSION
When courts consider a motion for attorney’s fees, the “basic point of
reference” is “the bedrock principle known as the ‘American Rule’: Each litigant
pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides
otherwise.” Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 252-53 (2010)
(quoting Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 683 (1983)). The parties do not
dispute that there is no contractual or statutory basis for a fee award in this case.
See Def. Resp. [432] at 2-3; Pl. Rebuttal [435] at 2. Rather, Huntington Ingalls
argues that an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate under the Court’s “inherent
power to assess attorney’s fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously,
wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Def. Rebuttal [435] at 2-3 (quoting Swiss Inst.
of Bioinformatics v. Glob. Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data, 49 F. Supp. 3d
92, 98 (D.D.C. 2014)).
The record is clear that the Court has not made any findings that the
Ministry “acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” See
Mem. Opinion [406]. Further, this does not seem to be the kind of extraordinary
situation warranting a departure from the general rule. For these reasons,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees should be denied.
Because the Court has found that attorney’s fees are not warranted in this
case, the Ministry’s Motion [437] for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) from the award of
attorney’s fees should be denied as moot. The Court did not specifically award

3

Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 443 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 4

attorney’s fees to Huntington Ingalls, so no relief from the Final Judgment is
necessary.
III. CONCLUSION
To the extent the Court has not addressed any of the parties’ arguments, it has
considered them and determined that they would not alter the result.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Plaintiff
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., f/k/a Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., and now
known as Huntington Ingalls Incorporated’s Motion [426] for Attorney’s Fees is
DENIED, and Defendant The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela’s
Motion [437] for Relief Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 4th day of August, 2020.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4