Ryan Haygood v. Brian Begue

Case: 20-30133 Document: 00515553782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 4, 2020
No. 20-30133
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ryan Haygood; Haygood Dental Care, L.L.C.,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Camp Morrison; C. Barry Ogden; Karen Moorhead;
Dana Glorioso,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:13-CV-335
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
This appeal concerns an attorney’s fee award. Ryan Haygood and
Haygood Dental Care, LLC (collectively, “Haygood”) sued Camp
Morrison, C. Barry Ogden, Karen Moorhead, and Dana Glorioso
(collectively, “Appellees”), along with defendants not part of this appeal.
After dismissing Haygood’s claims, the district court granted Appellees’
motion for attorney’s fees and denied Haygood’s resulting motion for
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30133 Document: 00515553782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
No. 20-30133
reconsideration. Haygood now appeals. For the following reasons, we
DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have authority to hear “appeals from all
final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” In most cases, “an
order is final only when it ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing
for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton,
568 F.3d 181, 214 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437
U.S. 463, 467 (1978)). An order imposing attorney’s fees that leaves the
amount for “later determination” is not final for purposes of appellate
review. Southern Travel Club. v. Carnival Air Lines, 986 F.2d 125, 131 (5th
Cir. 1993) (“[A]n order awarding attorney’s fees or costs is not reviewable
on appeal until the award is reduced to a sum certain.”); see also Pechon v. La.
Dept. of Health, 368 F. App’x 606, 609–10 (5th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a
claim for attorney’s fees is “a separate action from one on the merits” and
leaving the amount in question is not a final order).
On March 14, 2019, the district court granted a motion for attorney’s
fees in Appellees’ favor without specifying the amount awarded. It then
ordered Appellees to file detailed time reports within twenty-one days of the
order so that it could determine a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees.
After an extension, Appellees submitted a motion to file detailed time reports
with an attached exhibit reflecting same. Thereafter, the district court
granted the motion to submit detailed time reports, but it has not yet entered
an order specifying the precise amount of attorney’s fees awarded. Since no
order exists specifying the amount awarded in attorney’s fees, we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal.
DISMISSED.
2