LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, National Association
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-05496
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In LL Funds v. Fifth Third Bank, Judge Schofield ordered briefing on a fee request’s jurisdiction and possible stay while LL Funds’s appeal proceeds.
LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC and Fifth Third Bank, National Association; the order sets briefing deadlines and addresses the handling of Fifth Third Bank’s proposed fee motion during LL Funds’s appeal.
What happened
In LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, National Association, the court had already entered judgment for Fifth Third Bank after findings of fact and legal conclusions. Fifth Third Bank then sought permission to request attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under the parties’ contracts.
LL Funds opposed that request and appealed the findings, conclusions, and earlier orders in the case. Fifth Third Bank argued that the contract entitled it to fees and costs incurred to enforce a contractual protection against loss.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered LL Funds to file a further response addressing the contract authorities by October 28, 2025. She also ordered the parties to brief whether the court has authority to consider the fee request while the appeal is pending and whether the fee request should be paused during the appeal.
The detailed version
- LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, National Association · No. 1:24-cv-05496
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
The court stated that judgment had been entered for Fifth Third Bank in this action based on findings of fact and legal conclusions dated September 19, 2025. Fifth Third Bank moved for permission to file a motion seeking attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements under the parties’ contracts. LL Funds opposed that request.
Issues Before the Court
In a reply, Fifth Third Bank argued, among other things, that a party contractually entitled to be held harmless may be entitled to fees and costs incurred to enforce the contractual indemnity provision. The court directed LL Funds to address the relevance of that authority and cases interpreting similar contract language. The opinion also states that LL Funds had appealed the findings of fact and legal conclusions and all prior orders in the action.
Order
Judge Schofield did not decide the fee request in this order. Instead, the court ordered LL Funds to file a surreply by October 28, 2025, addressing the cited authority. The court also ordered the parties to file briefing by that date on whether it has jurisdiction over Fifth Third Bank’s fee motion while the appeal is pending and whether the fee motion should be stayed during the appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.