Members First Federal v. Members First Credit

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 12 2001
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 00-10658 CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 98-00004-CV-3-LAC
MEMBERS FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, LOUISVILLE, KY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Cross-Appellee,
Versus
MEMBERS FIRST CREDIT UNION OF
FLORIDA,
Defendant-Appellee,
Cross-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
(March 12, 2001)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and POLITZ*, Circuit Judges.
___________________________________________
*Honorable Henry A. Politz, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
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 “[u]nless 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
2
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 further 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, 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
3
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.
4