By Richard Harris
Law Clerk to Hon. Susan F. Hutchinson, Illinois Appellate Court, Second District
With its tongue in its cheek, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals recently found a case so wanting of jurisdiction that it
expressed a desire to make both sides pay a penalty into the “law clerks’
holiday-party fund.”
In Cooke v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 17-2080 (7th Cir.
Feb. 9, 2018), the District Court ordered two kinds of relief. First, the defendant insurance company was
ordered to pay the death benefit on the plaintiff’s husband’s policy. Second, the insurance company was ordered to
pay the plaintiff’s legal expenses. The
parties treated this order as the final judgment for purposes of appeal. However, the order made no mention of any
specific relief—it simply stated that one motion was granted, another was
denied, and an award was made. “We have
held many times,” wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook, “that judgments must provide
relief and must not stop with reciting that motions were granted or
denied—indeed that it is inappropriate for a judgment to refer to motions at
all.”
The Court
of Appeals noted that there was another order entered by the District Court,
not treated as a final judgment by the parties, which also purported to grant
relief. This was a standard form order used
for judgments. It stated that judgment
was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the insurance company, and
that the plaintiff was awarded “reasonable attorney fees.” Unfortunately, the order was not signed by
the district judge (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(2)(B)), and it made no mention of
exactly how much the insurance company was ordered to pay—whether for attorney
fees or on the plaintiff’s husband’s policy. Recognizing these shortcomings, the plaintiff
sought clarification by way of a motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In turn, the District Court entered
an order that directed the insurance company to pay a specific amount on the
policy, but left open the amount of attorney fees. The plaintiff filed a petition asking for
specification on the amount of attorney fees, but this was denied with leave to
renew after resolution of the pending appeal from the first order.
The
debacle continued when the insurance company filed a second notice of appeal,
this time on the order containing the ruling on the plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion. The insurance company conceded the issue on
the merits and paid the plaintiff on her husband’s policy, but argued that the
plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees. This prompted Judge Easterbrook to query, “Yet how can [the insurance
company] appeal from an award of attorneys’ fees that has yet to be quantified?
A declaration of liability lacking an amount due is not final and cannot be
appealed.” The obvious problem was that
this could lead to multiple appeals from a single award: one contesting the declaration
of liability on the issue of attorney
fees and another contesting the amount of
attorney fees awarded. The insurance
company cited Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196
(1988), correctly observing that decisions on the merits and awards of attorney
fees are separately appealable. But
while Budinich would have
applied to make the award on the plaintiff’s husband’s policy final and
appealable, that case did not provide for an appeal from an unquantified award
for legal expenses.
Throwing one final wrench into the proceedings, the
plaintiff filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38,
arguing that she was entitled to a separate award of attorney fees because she
was forced to litigate the insurance company’s “frivolous” appeal from the
order on her Rule 59 motion. The motion
was denied, as the plaintiff was scolded for briefing the issue on the merits
rather than filing a motion to dismiss the premature appeal. Judge Easterbrook concluded, “If it
were permissible for a court to order both sides to pay a penalty—say,
into the law clerks’ holiday-party fund—we would be inclined to do so. But there’s no such appellate power and no good
reason for us to order [the insurance company] to pay something to [the
plaintiff] as a result of a problem that both sides missed.”
Alas, we law
clerks are left to finance our own holiday debauchery.
DISCLAIMER: The Appellate Lawyers Association does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.
