MEMBERS FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, LOUISVILLE, KY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MEMBERS FIRST CREDIT UNION OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Eleventh Circuit held that a motion for attorney's fees filed within 30 days of entry of judgment, but after a timely Rule 59 motion to alter or amend judgment, is timely because the Rule 59 motion suspends the finality of judgment.
A motion for attorney's fees filed within 30 days of entry of judgment is timely under N.D. Fla. R. 54.1 even if filed after a timely Rule 59 motion, because the Rule 59 motion suspends judgment finality.
[1] A timely motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 to alter or amend judgment suspends the finality of the judgment, allowing a subsequent motion for attorney's fee…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A timely Rule 59 motion to alter or amend judgment operates to suspend the finality of the district court's judgment 'pending the court's farther determination whether the judgment should be modified so as to alter its adjudication of the rights of the parties.'”
The court explained the legal effect of a Rule 59 motion on judgment finality.
Members First Federal Credit Union sought attorney's fees following a judgment entered September 30, 1999. MFFCU filed a Rule 59 motion to alter or am…
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: Members First Federal Credit Union (“MFFCU”) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for attorney’s fees; Members First Credit Union of Florida (“MFCUF”) cross-appeals the district court’s (1) denial of its motion to modify injunction and (2) award of costs and attorney’s fees incurred by MFFCU in opposing MFCUF’s motion to modify injunction.
We find no merit in the cross-appeal and accordingly affirm. See 11th Cir. R. 36-1.
We find merit, however, in MFFCU’s appeal.
The district court denied MFFCU’s motion for attorney’s fees on the ground that the motion was not filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment as required by N.D. Fla. R. 54.1. Judgment was entered on September 30, 1999.
On October 12, 1999, MFFCU moved the court pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 59 to alter or amend the judgment. The court denied the motion on November 10, 1999, and MFFCU filed its motion for attorney’s fees 13 days later. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2)(B) states that “[ujnless otherwise provided by statute or order of the court, [a motion for attorney’s fees] must be filed and served no later than 14 days after entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 83 authorizes the district courts to adopt local rules governing practice and procedure; included within such authorization are rules “establishing timeliness standards for the filing of claims for attorney’s fees.” Zaklama, M.D. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 906 F. 2d 645, 647 (11th Cir.1990), quoting White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 454, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 1168, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982).
Drawing on this authority, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida adopted a rule providing that “a motion for award of attorney’s fees ... shall be filed and served within the time specified in the scheduling order....” N.D. Fla. R. 54.1. The scheduling order in the instant case allowed a motion for attorney’s fees to be filed “within 30 days after judgment.” A timely Rule 59 motion to alter or amend judgment operates to suspend the finality of the district court’s judgment “pending the court’s farther determination whether the judgment should-be modified so as to alter its adjudication of the rights of the parties.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 267, 98 S.Ct. 556, 562, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), quoting Dep’t of Banking v. Pink, 317 U.S. 264, 266, 63 S.Ct. 233, 234, 87 L.Ed. 254 (1942).
Because the finality of a judgment is effectively postponed by the timely filing of a motion under Rule 59, we conclude that MFFCU’s motion, filed within 30 days of the entry of final judgment as permitted by N.D. Fla. R. 54.1, was timely.
The district court therefore erred in rejecting the motion as untimely. We consequently vacate its ruling and remand the case with the instruction that the court consider the motion on its merits. We of course intimate no view as to the outcome the court should reach. AFFIRMED, in part, VACATED, in part, and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tire Kingdom, Inc. v. Morgan Tire & Auto, Inc., 253 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2001)…f a local rule from the Northern District of Florida that permitted a motion for attorney’s fees to be filed and served within the time specified in the scheduling order. See Members First Fed. Credit Union v. Members First Credit Union of Florida, 244 F. 3d 806 (11th Cir.2001). We noted that the district court adopted the local rule pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 83 and concluded that the local rule governing time to file a fee motion applied. Id. at 807. We likewise conclude that the time limit set out in l…
-
Webb v. City of Venice (M.D. Fla. 2023)…l findings and legal conclusions.2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 2 Judge Wilson reasoned that Plaintiff’s renewed fee motion (Doc. 162) was timely under Members First Fed. Credit Union v. Members First Credit Union of Fla., 244 F. 3d 806 (11th Cir. 2001). The Court agrees and alternatively holds that Plaintiff’s bill of costs (Doc. 145) can be considered a timely “motion” because it requested relief, specifically, an award of fees. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) and Local…
Authorities Cited
- Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1978)
- White v. N.H. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1982)
- Dep't of Banking of Neb. v. Pink, 317 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1942)
- Esmat Zaklama, M.D. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 906 F.2d 645 (11th Cir. 1990)