Ema Financial, LLC v. Vystar Corp.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:19-cv-01545
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ema Financial v. Vystar, Judge Gorenstein denied Vystar’s fee motion for now while appeals of the judgment remain pending.
Vystar’s request for attorney’s fees is affected. Ema Financial and Vystar must wait until the pending appeals are resolved before a new fee motion may be filed or the existing motion reinstated.
What happened
Ema Financial, LLC v. Vystar Corp. concerns Vystar’s request for attorney’s fees after judgment was entered for Vystar and the case was dismissed. Ema Financial appealed, and Vystar filed a cross-appeal; both appeals remain pending.
Ema asked the court to wait until the appeals are decided before ruling on Vystar’s fee motion. Vystar opposed that request, but the court explained that the rule governing fee motions allows the court to defer a decision while an appeal is pending. The rule about pausing enforcement of a judgment did not apply because the judgment awarded no money.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied Vystar’s fee motion at this time because the appeals could make the motion moot or change the relief available. Any new fee motion, or reinstatement of the pending motion, must be filed within 21 days after the appeals court issues its mandate.
The detailed version
- Ema Financial, LLC v. Vystar Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-01545
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Aug. 5, 2024
Background
On November 27, 2023, the court entered judgment in favor of Vystar Corp., dismissing the case after resolving the parties’ summary-judgment motions. Ema Financial, LLC appealed that decision, and Vystar later filed a cross-appeal. Both appeals were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when the court decided this order.
Vystar had filed a motion for attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). Ema asked the court to defer ruling until the Second Circuit resolved the appeal. Vystar opposed deferral and cited Rule 62, which concerns staying enforcement of a judgment by posting a bond.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Rule 54(d) permits a district court to decide a fee motion, defer it, or deny it without prejudice when an appeal on the merits is pending. Courts commonly wait for the appellate court’s mandate—the formal document returning jurisdiction to the district court—because the appeal may affect which party ultimately qualifies for fees or the scope of any relief.
The court rejected Vystar’s argument that Ema had to file a separate motion to stay the judgment. Rule 62 did not apply because the judgment dismissed the case without awarding monetary relief. Deferring a fee ruling and staying enforcement of a judgment are separate matters.
Disposition
Because the appeals could make Vystar’s fee application moot or change the scope of relief, the court exercised its discretion to deny Vystar’s attorney’s-fee motion at this time. The deadline for filing a new fee motion under Rule 54(d)(2)(B), or reinstating the pending motion, is 21 days after the Second Circuit’s mandate is entered on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.