holding that Rule 59(e) does not apply to requests for attorney’s fees; a motion for attorney’s fees “raises legal issues collateral to the main cause of action — issues to which Rule 59(e) was never intended to apply” because Rule 59(e) applies to the “reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Rule 59(e) does not apply to requests for attorney’s fees; a motion for attorney’s fees “raises legal issues collateral to the main cause of action — issues to which Rule 59(e) was never intended to apply” because Rule 59(e) applies to the “reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits”
- holding that motions for attorneys’ fees under Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fees Awards Act, which provides for awards of attorneys’ fees only to a “prevailing party,” are not requests to “alter or amend” the judgment and therefore are not governed by the analogous time limits contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59
- stating that “[r]egardless of when attorney’s fees are requested, the court’s decision of entitlement to fees will therefore require an inquiry separate from the decision on the merits — an inquiry that cannot even commence until one party has ‘prevailed’ while discussing attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988”
- concluding that “a request for attorney’s fees under § 1988 raises legal issues collateral to the main cause of action—issues to which Rule 59(e) was never intended to apply” and holding that Rule 59(e) was inapplicable “to the postjudgment fee request”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois v. Cruz, 495 F.3d 510 (2007)
629 F.2d 697, 708 (1st Cir.1980), reversed on other grounds, 455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), is inapplicable in the present case because the attorney is not a party.
Distinguished by Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc. v. Glaverbel, S.A., 194 F.R.D. 633 (2000)
White held that Rule 59(e) was inapplicable to the fee request, but the Court did not address the general timeliness of the movant’s request.
Distinguished by Robert D. Samuels, and McGee Parramore, Former Attorney for v. American Motors Sales Corporation, 969 F.2d 573 (1992)
455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), is inapposite.
Distinguished by Fred Drucker and Jacqueline Drucker v. O'brien's Moving and Storage Inc., Bekins Van Lines Co., 963 F.2d 1171 (1992)
455 U.S. 445, 451, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 1166, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), noted that Rule 59(e) is inapplicable to attorney’s fees which raise legal issues collateral to the merits of the underlying case.
The opinion
Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree with much that is said in the Court’s opinion and I therefore concur, of course, in its judgment. I wish, however, that the Court had gone one step further.
We granted certiorari in this case, as the Court notes, ante, at 450, to resolve the existing conflict among the Courts of Appeals regarding postjudgment requests for attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988 . Three Circuits have held that these fee requests are not within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), but are within the reach of Rules 54(d) and 58. Two have held that the requests are subject to Rule 59(e). And a sixth has held that such a request is not governed by any of the three Rules. See ante, at 450, n. 9. The Court today settles the conflict so far as Rule 59(e) and its inapplicability to a fee request are concerned. But it leaves unanswered the applicability of Rules 54(d) and 58 because “this question is unnecessary to our disposition of this case.” Ante, at 454 and this page, n. 17.
I would answer that question, and hold that Rules 54(d) and 58 also do not apply to postjudgment §1988 fees requests. I believe that the federal courts and the lawyers that practice in them should have an answer so that we shall not have yet another case to decide before the correct procedure for evaluating such requests is settled for all concerned.
*456 I note, happily, that the Court at least touches upon the ultimate answer, ante, at 454, and n. 17, when it observes that district courts are free to adopt local rules. By so saying, the Court comes close to approving the position taken by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Obin v. District No. 9, Int’l Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 651 F. 2d 574 (1981). I think the Eighth Circuit is correct in its approach to the general problem. Thus, I would approve that approach and have the matter settled, eliminating the inconsistency which the Court leaves between the views of the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits on the one hand, and the view of the Eighth Circuit on the other.