Koenning et al v. Suehs
Filing
54
OPINION AND ORDER. Defendant's 49 Rule 60(b)(5) Motion for Relief From Attorneys' Fees is Granted, and the Court's November 14, 2012 43 Memorandum Opinion and Order is Vacated. (Signed by Judge John D. Rainey.) Parties notified. (yhausmann, 6)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
BRADLEY KOENNING,
BRIAN MARTIN, and
MORGAN RYALS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THOMAS SUEHS, in his official
capacity as Executive Commissioner,
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMISSION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. V-11-6
OPINION & ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(5) Motion for Relief from Attorneys’
Fees (Dkt. No. 49), filed by Kyle L. Janek,1 Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and
Human Services Commission (THHSC), acting through the Texas Medicaid and Healthcare
Partnership (TMHP) (hereinafter “Defendant”). Plaintiffs Bradley Koenning, Brian Martin, and
Morgan Ryals (“Plaintiffs”) have responded to Defendant’s motion. (Dkt. No. 53.)
I. Background
On September 18, 2012, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion & Order and Final
Judgment, granting in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and remanding the case to
TMHP for further action. (Dkt. Nos. 33 & 34.) On November 14, 2012, the Court entered a second
Memorandum Opinion & Order awarding Plaintiffs $158,331.60 in attorneys’ fees and $6,847.63
in court costs based on their status as “prevailing parties” on summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 43.) In
an October 4, 2013 per curium opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1. Kyle L. Janek succeeded Thomas Suehs as Executive Commissioner of THHSC on September 1, 2012.
1
dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims on appeal as moot and vacated the Court’s September 18, 2012
Opinion and Judgment in “the public interest,” finding that the Court’s decision “contain[ed]
meaningful errors.” (Dkt. No. 50 at 3–4.) Defendant now moves the Court to vacate its November
14, 2012 Order awarding Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and court costs.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a district court may relieve a party
from a final judgment or order that is “based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(5). Numerous courts, including the Fifth Circuit, have “ma[d]e it
clear that FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(5) is an appropriate method for seeking relief from a judgment of
attorney’s fees once the underlying judgment has been reversed.” Am. Realty Trust, Inc. v. Matisse
Partners, L.L.C., 2003 WL 23175440, *3 n.5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2003) (citing Flowers v. S. Reg’l
Physician Servs, Inc., 286 F.3d 798, 801–02 (5th Cir. 2002); Cal. Med. Ass’n v. Shalala, 207 F.3d
575, 577–79 (9th Cir. 2000), Mother Goose Nursery Sch., Inc. v. Sendak, 770 F.2d 668, 676 (7th
Cir. 1985)).
III. Analysis
Despite Plaintiffs’ assertions to the contrary, the Fifth Circuit did not vacate the Court’s
Opinion and Judgment because they were moot. The Fifth Circuit vacated the Court’s Opinion and
Judgment because they were erroneous.
Because the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees was based on an erroneous judgment that has
since been vacated by the Fifth Circuit, the fee award must be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5).
See Flowers, 286 F.3d at 802 (Vacatur of a fee award was appropriate under Rule 60(b)(5) where
the “part of the judgment that formed the basis of the granting of attorney’s fees was vacated.”);
Cal. Med. Ass’n, 207 F.3d at 577–78 (Where an award of attorneys’ fees is based on the merits of
2
the judgment, “reversal of the merits removes the underpinnings of the fee award.”); 15B CHARLES
ALAN WRIGHT
ET AL.,
FED. PRAC. & PROC. § 3915.6 (If no appeal is taken from an award of
attorney’s fees, “some means must be found to avoid the unseemly spectacle of enforcing a fee
award based on a judgment that has been reversed.”).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(5) Motion for Relief from
Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 49) is GRANTED, and the Court’s November 14, 2012 Memorandum
Opinion & Order awarding Plaintiffs $158,331.60 in attorneys’ fees and $6,847.63 in court costs
(Dkt. No. 43) is VACATED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 9th day of December, 2013.
____________________________________
JOHN D. RAINEY
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?