Villeneuve v. Avon Products, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 20-1121
MARIA I. VILLENEUVE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
AVON PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Kayatta and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Juan Frontera-Suau, Frontera Suau Law Offices, PSC, and
Kenneth Cólon for appellant.
Elizabeth Perez-Lleras, Schuster Aguiló LLC, and Lourdes C.
Hernández-Venegas, for appellee.
October 7, 2020
Per Curiam. We return in this appeal to district court
litigation we reviewed previously in Villeneuve v. Avon Prod.,
Inc., 919 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2019). There, we affirmed judgment for
Avon Products, Inc. ("Avon"), on three claims brought by Appellant
María Villeneuve.
After our mandate issued, Avon sought to recover some of its
expenses, and moved the district court to tax costs. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920. The district court granted in part (and denied in part)
Avon's request. Villeneuve then appealed that ruling.
Before briefing on any claim of error, the parties filed a
joint motion, stating that they had settled the case "for the sole
purpose of avoiding litigation costs." The parties then made what
we construe to be two requests: first, that we enter "judgment with
prejudice disposing of" this appeal, and second, that we vacate
the district court's costs order. We address the parties' requests
by dismissing the appeal and by denying the request for vacatur,
without prejudice to seeking relief from the district court.
I.
Background
A. District Court Litigation and Prior Appeal
We previously recounted, in some detail, Villeneuve's suit
against Avon. See Villeneuve, 919 F.3d 40 at 42-46. We note here
only the new developments, and other key points, to lend context
- 2 -
to the discussion.
Villeneuve worked for over 16 years for Avon, in various
roles, before Avon terminated her in July 2014. Id. at 42-43. In
November of that year, Villeneuve filed suit against Avon in the
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, bringing claims of
(1) age discrimination, (2) sexual-orientation discrimination, and
(3) unjust discharge, all based on Puerto Rico law. Id. at 43-44.
The district court heard the case in diversity. Id. at 42. Before
discovery, the district court granted Avon's motion to dismiss the
sexual-orientation discrimination claim. Id. at 43-44. Discovery
then commenced on the remaining claims, and Avon eventually moved
for summary judgment. Id. at 44. The district court granted the
motion. Id. at 46. Between them, the district court's two rulings
had resolved all the claims from the operative complaint, teeing
up Villeneuve's appeal. See id. at 46. After oral argument, we
affirmed the relevant rulings in favor of Avon. Id. at 54.1
B. Bill of Costs
In May 2017, before we decided the appeal, Avon, as the once
(and future) prevailing party, moved for an award of costs under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). The deputy clerk of court
for the District entered an order denying relief, without prejudice
to Avon refiling after "judgment on appeal is entered and the
1 We awarded Avon the costs of appeal. Id. (citing Fed. R.
App. P. 39(a)(2)).
- 3 -
appellate mandate becomes final." In April 2019, after the mandate
from our opinion in the original appeal issued, Avon timely filed
a motion restating its bill of costs, without any apparent material
change in the relief sought.
In its motion, as restated, Avon requested an award of costs
relating to: (1) copying, (2) translation and interpretation
services, (3) producing deposition transcripts, and (4) service of
process (as well as service of certain subpoenas). The parties
fully briefed the motion.
In December 2019, the district court issued an opinion and
order granting in part and denying in part Avon's restated motion.
In the order and opinion, the district court left open one item,
by indicating that denial of certain copying-related costs was
without prejudice and giving Avon time to provide "proper
documentation." After a responsive submission by Avon, the district
court issued an amended opinion and order.
All told, the district court awarded Avon costs amounting to
(1) $623.85 for production-related copying, (2) $675.00 for
Spanish-language interpretive services, (3) $1,491.40 for court
reporting of Villeneuve's deposition, and (4) $5,418.80 for
service. The district court, in calculating these amounts, declined
to award $374.40 relating to discovery-related subpoenas and
$2,420.60 for translation services.
- 4 -
C. Instant Appeal
Villeneuve timely appealed the amended opinion and order. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Avon did not appeal from the partial denial
of relief, so the only sums in dispute on appeal were the costs
awarded to Avon.
Well before the deadline for Villeneuve's opening brief, the
parties filed a "Joint Motion Informing Settlement Agreement and
Requesting the Court to Vacate the District Court's Ruling That Is
Subject of the Present Appeal." The parties tell us that they "have
reached a settlement agreement in the present case, for the sole
purpose of avoiding litigation costs." The motion requests that
this court "issue a judgment with prejudice disposing of the
present case by vacating the District Court's rulings that are
subject to the appeal." The parties also request that any judgment
not impose costs or attorney's fees. Beyond the information about
the settlement and the parties' motivations for settling, the joint
motion offers no argument or authority in favor of the specific
relief sought.
II.
Analysis
The parties, by their joint motion, seek two distinct forms
of relief: first, dismissal, and second, vacatur. We address the
two requests in turn.
- 5 -
A. Dismissal (and Mootness)
A case becomes moot on appeal "when the issues presented are
no longer live or when the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome." Cruz v. Farquharson, 252 F.3d 530, 533
(1st Cir. 2001). In this situation, "a case or controversy ceases
to exist, and dismissal of the action is compulsory." Id.
Here, the parties purport to have settled their dispute,
leaving neither party with an issue to pursue on appeal. Based on
the stipulated fact of settlement, we can only conclude that "the
issues presented in the initial appeal are 'no longer live,'"
meaning we must dismiss the appeal. Overseas Military Sales Corp.
v. Giralt-Armada, 503 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Cruz,
252 F.3d at 533). Our conclusion on this point therefore resolves
the joint motion insofar as the parties seek disposition of this
appeal.
B. Vacatur
The parties also have asked this court to vacate the district
court's costs order. Our approach to a request of this kind usually
turns on what ruling a party seeks to vacate and the reasons offered
for doing so. Though sometimes we will entertain a direct request
to vacate a lower court ruling, we will not do so here, because
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure afford a potential path to
relief before the district court.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), "[o]n motion
- 6 -
and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" if "the
judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable." In this way,
"Rule 60(b)(5) describes three sets of circumstances in which
relief from a final judgment may be justified." Comfort v. Lynn
Sch. Comm., 560 F.3d 22, 27 (1st Cir. 2009).
Here, the parties seek limited relief, concerning a monetary
award, after a settlement. This is a "set of circumstances" where
the award of costs "has been satisfied, released, or discharged,"
directly implicating Rule 60(b)(5). When relief under that
provision may be available, parties in these or similar
circumstances should first seek relief under Rule 60(b)(5) at the
district court, before making any request to this court.
The parties do not explain why relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is
not available, and the dismissal of the appeal should not affect
the parties' rights to invoke the provision. Thus, given the
enduring potential for relief under Rule 60(b)(5), we have no
reason at this time to take up the vacatur request lodged in this
court.
III.
Conclusion
We conclude that the undisputed fact of settlement moots any
- 7 -
case or controversy, requiring dismissal of this appeal.
Therefore, the parties' joint motion is resolved as follows.
We DISMISS the appeal as moot, with the parties to bear their
own appellate costs and fees. We need not take up the parties'
vacatur request, but this decision is without prejudice to pursuit
of vacatur relief in the district court, a course we encourage for
parties who find themselves in similar positions in the future.
Any party wishing to seek review of subsequent district court
rulings in this case should file a new notice of appeal.2
2
Villeneuve designated multiple district court rulings (and
party filings) in the operative notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App.
P. 3(c)(1)(B). Based on the course we follow here, we need not
decide whether the notice of appeal was timely as to all the
district court rulings listed, nor whether each of the listed
rulings is appealable as a general matter. The parties may seek
vacatur of the district court orders of their choosing, and the
district court may determine, in the first instance, which prior
orders, if any, should be vacated.
- 8 -