JOHN C. WATKINS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN M. MCMILLAN, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND GARY J. BEERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES, JOHN HODNETT, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, KENNY NICHOLS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND SIDNEY BLEDSOE, DIRECTOR OF THE PARKS DIVISION OF THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the 'date of judgment' for filing attorney fees under local rules refers to the district court's final judgment, not the date of appellate affirmation.
Plaintiffs sought attorney fees after prevailing in their case. The district court denied the motion, finding it untimely under local rules requiring …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Court Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The district court denied a motion of the prevailing plaintiffs for attorney fees on the ground that it was not filed within the time required by the local rules of that court. The rule provides:
In any case in which an attorney is entitled by statute to attorney fees as the prevailing party, and such attorney fees are taxable as part of the cost, the attorney may have additional time to file his petition for attorney fees, but such petition shall be filed or mailed by certified or registered mail within 30 days from the date of judgment, or such claim shall be deemed waived. CAVEAT: In some cases the attorney fees are treated as part of the judgment rather than as part of the cost. If part of the judgment, a petition to amend the judgment must be filed within 10 days of the judgment.
Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Rule 5.
Appealing from that decision, the plaintiff admits the district court is authorized to adopt rules establishing timeliness standards for the filing of claims for attorney fees. White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982). He contends, however, that the judgment which triggers the time under the local rule must be a final judgment, and that the district court judgment entered on August 16, 1984, did not become final until affirmed by this court on April 16, 1985. Since the motion for fees was filed on May 3, 1985, he argues his motion was within the 30-day requirement of the rule.
We affirm the decision of the district court that the “date of judgment,” as used in the rules, refers to the date of the final judgment in the district court, and that an appeal does not extend or stay the time limit for filing a motion for fees. Although we agree the decision in Pitts v. Freeman, 755 F. 2d 897 (11th Cir.1985), is not precisely in point because the request there was for attorney fees attributable to an unap-pealed part of the judgment, the rationale of that case and the reasons for setting a time limit dictate the district court was within its discretion in interpreting its own rule as it did.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Alma, 971 F.2d 723 (11th Cir. 1992)…. In the present case, an appeal was not filed; the district court merely used the time limitations for filing an appeal as the date upon which to calculate the time within which a motion for attorney’s fees could be filed. In Watkins v. McMillan, 779 F. 2d 1465 (11th Cir.1985), we affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for attorney’s fees on the ground that the motion was untimely. There, the local rule provided in pertinent part: In any case in which an attorney is entitled ... to attorney fees…
-
Esmat Zaklama, M.D. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 906 F.2d 645 (11th Cir. 1990)…rneys' fees by prevailing parties to be filed within thirty days from the date of judgment, despite the prevailing plaintiffs’ contention that the district court's judgment was not final until it was affirmed eight months later. Watkins v. McMillan, 779 F. 2d 1465, 1466 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam); see Pitts v. Freeman, 755 F. 2d 897, 898 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (Although an appeal had been taken from the district court’s judgment in this case and appellants argued that the judgment was not final for th…
-
Hicks v. S. Md. Health Sys. Agency, 805 F.2d 1165 (4th Cir. 1986)…t the twenty days begins to run from the date of this court’s mandate affirming the judgment of the district court. The rule, however, is that of the district court and we do not have the benefit of its interpretation of it. Cf. Watkins v. McMillan, 779 F. 2d 1465 (11th Cir.1985). Local Rule 23A, however, is not jurisdictional. It is a housekeeping rule regulating the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. The rule itself contemplates that there may be departures from it by court order, and here the court has…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. N.H. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1982)
- Pitts v. Freeman, 755 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1985)