Cone et al v. Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. et al
Filing
332
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motions to Enforce the Settlement Agreement on Litigation Expenses (Dkt. #85 in Case No. 4:19-CV-248; Dkt. 328 in Case No. 4:17-CV-001) are hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall pay Plaintiffs' litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $371,354.98, plus appropriate interest from the date of the Amended Final Judgment (Dkt. #61) until date of payment. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 4/8/2022. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
MARK FESSLER, AMBER FESSLER,
ANDREW HOCKER, KEVIN REUSS,
MATTHEW CARRERAS, CHARLES
HANDLY,
MICHELLE
HANDLY,
AARON STONE, STACEY STONE,
DANIEL SOUSA, and SHARON SOUSA,
on Behalf of Themselves and Those
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
STEVEN CONE, JOANNA CONE,
MARK FESSLER, AMBER FESSLER,
ANDREW HOCKER, and MATTHEW
CARRERAS, on Behalf of Themselves and
Those Similarly Situated; and AARON
STONE, STACEY STONE, DANIEL
SOUSA, and SHARON SOUSA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PORCELANA CORONA DE MÉXICO,
S.A. DE C.V. f/k/a SANITARIOS
LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a VORTENS,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-248
Judge Mazzant
Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-001
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions to Enforce the Settlement Agreement on
Litigation Expenses (Dkt. #85; Dkt. #328). 1 Having considered the motions and the relevant
pleadings, the Court finds that the motions should be GRANTED.
Because this is a consolidated fee-award action, two identical motions, responses, replies, and sur-replies were
filed in the above-captioned cases. Throughout this Order, the Court cites to one of these filings, and unless otherwise
noted, citations to the Motion (Dkt. #85) or the response (Dkt. #87) can be found on the docket of Case No. 4:19-CV248, while any citations to Dkt. #328 or Dkt. #329—which are identical filings, respectively—are located on the
docket of Case No. 4:17-CV-001. Further, in referencing one docket, the Court is, by implication, referencing the
other.
1
BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2020, the undersigned Court issued its Amended Final Judgment in this case
(Dkt. #61). The Final Judgment awarded Plaintiffs $4,333,949.50 in attorneys’ fees and
$371,354.98 in litigation expenses and costs. On May 15, 2020, Defendant appealed the Final
Judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, presenting a single issue for review: “Did
the district court err in ordering Appellant to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel approximately $4.3 million in
attorney’s fees?” (Case No. 20-40357, ECF Doc. 50 at p. 13).
On January 10, 2022, in a two-to-one decision, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the
Final Judgment. The Fifth Circuit found two errors in this Court’s attorneys’ fees award:
(1) “fail[ing] to make any factual findings regarding the nature of the Class’s unsuccessful claims,”
and (2) “fail[ing] to properly analyze the award in relation to the results obtained.” Fessler v.
Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., 23 F.4th 408, 417, 418 (5th Cir. 2022). As to the first
error, the Fifth Circuit instructed this Court on remand to “address the ‘common core of facts’ and
‘common legal theories’ sufficiently so that no fees are awarded on unsuccessful theories.” Id. at
418. To the second error, the Fifth Circuit instructed this Court to “consider the amount of damages
and non-monetary relief sought compared to what was actually received by the Class.” Id. On
February 24, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its mandate, directing this Court to conduct further
proceedings consistent with its appellate opinion (Dkt. #83 at p. 5).
On March 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the present motions, requesting the Court enforce the
portion of the Final Judgment awarding $371,354.98 in litigation expenses because it was “neither
addressed nor discussed in the appellate opinion” (Dkt. #84 at ¶ 10). On March 24, 2022, the Court
held a status conference in which the Court heard argument on the present motions. On March 28,
2022, Defendant filed its response, claiming that the Fifth Circuit vacated the entire Final
2
Judgment—thus vacating both the award of attorneys’ fees and the award of litigation expenses—
and any attempt to enforce the award of litigation expenses would be in violation of the Fifth
Circuit’s mandate (Dkt. #87). On March 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a statement detailing their
position on remand (Dkt. #88). On April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of the
present motions (Dkt. #89).
LEGAL STANDARD
The mandate rule, which is a corollary of the law-of-the-case doctrine, “prohibits a district
court on remand from reexamining an issue of law or fact previously decided on appeal and not
resubmitted to the trial court on remand.” United States v. Pineiro, 470 F.3d 200, 205
(5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). The rule includes issues expressly decided, as well as those impliedly
decided. United States v. Teel, 691 F.3d 578, 583 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted).
Even so, “a mandate is controlling only as to matters within its compass.” In re Deepwater
Horizon, 928 F.3d 394, 398 (5th Cir. 2019). In determining the scope of the mandate, a district
court “must proceed within the letter and spirit of the mandate by taking into account the appeals
court’s opinion and the circumstances it embraces.” Pineiro, 470 F.3d at 205.
“Additionally, pursuant to the ‘waiver approach’ to the mandate rule,” United States v.
McCrimmon, 443 F.3d 454, 459 (5th Cir. 2006), “[a]ll other issues not arising out of [the appeals
court’s] ruling and not raised before the appeals court, which could have been brought in the
original appeal, are not proper for reconsideration by the district court below.” Pineiro, 470 F.3d
at 205; see also United State v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding the mandate rule
“bars litigation of issues decided by the district court but foregone on appeal or otherwise waived”).
ANALYSIS
This Court’s Final Judgment awarded to Plaintiffs: (1) $4,333,949.50 in attorneys’ fees,
3
and (2) $371,354.98 in litigation costs and expenses (Dkt. #56 at pp. 25–26; Dkt. #61 at pp. 5–6).
Having appealed and obtained a favorable reversal on the issue of attorneys’ fees, Defendant now
argues that it is entitled to a second bite of the apple on the issue of litigation expenses as well. But
Fifth Circuit precedent is clear: “[I]f an issue was decided by the district court but was not
appealed, the issue is forfeited, and the district court may not consider the issue on remand.” Med.
Ctr. Pharm. v. Holder, 634 F.3d 830, 834 n.5 (5th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiffs first argue that neither party appealed nor raised the issue of litigation expenses
on appeal. In response, Defendant claims that it “appealed this Court’s entire ruling on fees and
costs, and this Court’s entire [Final] Judgment” (Dkt. #87 at p. 5). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs.
Defendant appealed the Final Judgment, requesting a determination from the Fifth Circuit on a
single issue—whether this Court’s award of $4.3 million in attorneys’ fees was error (Case No.
20-40357, ECF Doc. 50 at p. 13). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit “vacated and remanded [this Court’s
judgment] for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.” Fessler, 23 F.4th at 420.
Specifically, the Fifth Circuit directed this Court to recalculate its award of attorneys’ fees and to
recite in its findings the relevant lodestar factors enunciated in Johnson v. Georgia Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). Id. at 417, 418.
Based on the question Defendant presented and the complete absence of any argument on
litigation expenses in Defendant’s appellate brief (see Case No. 20-40357, ECF Doc. 50), the Fifth
Circuit’s opinion, unsurprisingly, contains no analysis on the litigation expenses award. While
Defendant now argues that its brief requested vacatur of the entire judgment, its brief actually
contained only a passing request in the prayer that the Fifth Circuit “vacate and remand” (Case
No. 20-40357, ECF Doc. 50 at p. 74). However, a generic request in an appellate brief does not
mean an issue becomes a part of the appeal or is within the scope of the appeal. See FED. R. APP.
4
P. 28; Sanders v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 553 F.3d 922, 926–27 (5th Cir. 2008) (simply
mentioning a claim is not sufficient argument or briefing); Audler v. CBC Innovis Inc., 519 F.3d
239, 255 (5th Cir. 2008) (“A party waives an issue if he fails to adequately brief it” on appeal).
In fact, the entirety of Defendant’s appellate brief focuses only on the award for attorneys’
fees—not the award for litigation expenses. For example, Defendant’s “Summary of the
Argument” in its appellate brief states, “Plaintiffs’ attorneys deserve to recover fees, but the
existing award of more than $4.3 million far overshoots the mark. The court should vacate the
award and remand for further proceedings” (Case No. 20-40357, ECF Doc. 50 at p. 73).
Defendant’s reply brief similarly argues that “de novo review should lead straight to reversal
vacating the Fee Award” (Case No. 20-40357, ECF Doc. 59 at p. 10). Thus, contrary to what
Defendant now asserts, the sole issue Defendant raised in its brief for the Fifth Circuit to resolve
is clear: whether “The 4.3 Million Fee Award Should Be Vacated” (Case No. 20-40357, ECF Doc.
50 at p. 53). Thus, the Court finds that Defendant did not appeal or raise the issue of litigation
expenses.
Plaintiffs next contend that because the Fifth Circuit vacated and reversed only the
attorneys’ fees award, the award for litigation expenses was not reversed either expressly or by
implication. In response, Defendant boldly asserts that to enforce the award of litigation expenses
would “defy the mandate, re-examine an issue decided by the Fifth Circuit’s explicit directive, and
do something else besides effect the mandate . . . [which] would lead this Court into further legal
error” (Dkt. #87 at p. 3). Defendant also argues that the Fifth Circuit’s “explicit judgment
unambiguously precludes” the enforcement of litigation costs decided prior to appeal (Dkt. #87
at p. 2). The Court finds Defendant’s argument unavailing.
Defendant is correct that the mandate rule requires the Court “‘on remand to effect’ the
5
Fifth Circuit’s ‘mandate and to do nothing else’” (Dkt. #87 at p. 3). See All. For Good Gov’t v.
Coal for Better Gov’t, 998 F.3d 661, 667 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 45 (2021),
(holding that on remand, a district court “may not disregard [the appellate court’s] explicit
directive”). However, the mandate here contains no explicit directive on the issue of litigation
costs. Where no explicit directive is contained in the mandate, the mandate rule “is [ ] applicable
only to those issues decided by necessary implication.” Berezowsky v. Rendon Ojeda, 652 Fed.
App’x 249, 252 n.19 (5th Cir. 2016). And as a general rule, “only those discrete, particular issues
identified by the appeals court for remand are properly before the district court.” Bourne v.
Gunnels, No. 19-20815, 2022 WL 963979, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2022).
The issue of litigation costs was not identified anywhere in the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, nor
does the Fifth Circuit’s mandate necessarily implicate the issue of litigation costs. Cf. Leroy v. City
of Houston, 906 F.2d 1068, 1077 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding vacatur of a portion of a district court’s
final judgment necessarily vacated the entire judgment where the mandate explicitly directed the
district court to enter judgment in a specific amount upon remand); see also Laitram Corp. v. NEC
Corp., 115 F.3d 947, 954 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (in discussing Leroy, finding that where the mandate
does not contain a specific dollar amount, “[t]he reasoning in Leroy is entirely inapplicable”). To
the contrary, the mandate states that this Court must conduct “further proceedings in accordance
with this opinion” (Dkt. #83 at p.5), and the opinion discusses only the issue of the attorneys’ fees
award.
Further, while Defendant argues that “the analysis required for [attorneys’] fees applies, at
least in some measure, to the assessment of expenses” (Dkt. #87 at p. 4), the Final Judgment
supports a different conclusion. In awarding litigation expenses, this Court analyzed whether
Plaintiffs’ expenses were reasonable and necessary for successful prosecution of this case (see
6
Dkt. #56 at pp. 24–25). The Court’s award for litigation expenses excluded expenses attributed to
unsuccessful claims. This analysis was conducted separately and on independent grounds from the
award of attorneys’ fees. Thus, the Court disagrees with Defendant that the award of litigation
expenses was vacated by necessary implication through the Fifth’s Circuit mandate. See generally
Deutsch v. Jesus Becerra, Inc., 717 Fed. App’x 390, 393–394 (5th Cir. 2007) (assessing error in
district court’s calculation of attorneys’ fees separately from error in calculating award of costs).
In sum, the issue of litigation expenses was neither expressly mentioned in the Fifth’s
Circuit’s mandate, nor included by implication. Therefore, “taking into account the appeals court’s
opinion and the circumstances it embraces,” the litigation expenses award was not within the Fifth
Circuit’s mandate. See Pineiro, 470 F.3d at 205.
Accordingly, the Court may enforce the award of litigation expenses. The Court may not,
however, reconsider or redetermine the amount of the award as the waiver doctrine precludes
reconsideration of matters finally decided and not raised on appeal. Under the waiver doctrine, “an
issue that could have been but was not raised on appeal is forfeited and may not be revisited by
the district court on remand.” Med. Ctr. Pharm. v. Holder, 634 F.3d 830, 834 (5th Cir. 2011)
(emphasis in original) (citing United States v. Castillo, 179 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 1999), rev’d
on other grounds, 530 U.S. 120 (2000)). The waiver doctrine “serves judicial economy by forcing
parties to raise issues whose resolution might spare the court and parties later rounds of remands
and appeals.” Id. “The waiver doctrine differs from the law of the case doctrine in that it arises as
a consequence of a party’s inaction, not as a consequence of a decision” by an appellate court.
Castillo, 179 F.3d at 326.
Defendant attempts to push the blame onto Plaintiffs, stating that “it was incumbent on
Plaintiffs’ counsel to petition for rehearing on” the issue of litigation expenses (Dkt. #87 at p. 2).
7
But Defendant was the party that appealed this Court’s Final Judgment. Defendant was responsible
for deciding which issues to appeal—thereby ultimately defining the scope of the appeal.
Defendant had both the right and opportunity to contest litigation costs and expenses before the
Fifth Circuit. Defendant chose not to. Because “[i]t has long been the rule in this [C]ircuit that any
issues not briefed on appeal are waived.” United States v. Thibodeaux, 211 F.3d 910, 912 (5th Cir.
2000), it is Defendant who must bear the consequences.
The Court, therefore, will not reconsider the award of litigation expenses, and will enforce
the award as rendered by the Amended Final Judgment, and as consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s
mandate and the parties’ settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions to Enforce the Settlement
Agreement on Litigation Expenses (Dkt. #85 in Case No. 4:19-CV-248; Dkt. #328 in Case No.
4:17-CV-001) are hereby GRANTED.
.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall pay Plaintiffs’ litigation costs and expenses
in the amount of $371,354.98, plus appropriate interest from the date of the Amended Final
Judgment (Dkt. #61) until date of payment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 8th day of April, 2022.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?