Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International
- Jon Tigar
- 4:17-cv-02824
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Resolute Forest Products v. Greenpeace International, Judge Tigar denied a scheduling request and struck Greenpeace’s untimely attorney-fee motion.
Greenpeace International, Greenpeace, Inc., Daniel Brindis, Amy Moas, and Rolf Skar lost their request for a new fee-motion schedule, and Greenpeace’s attorney-fee motion was struck. The order also affected the Resolute plaintiffs by enforcing the deadline for fee motions.
What happened
Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International concerned Greenpeace’s request to keep the case open for attorney-fee motions after an earlier magistrate judge’s order set a December 1, 2022 deadline. Greenpeace argued that its later fee motion was timely, while Resolute argued that it was late.
The court ruled that objections to the magistrate judge’s order did not pause the deadline. Because the parties did not meet and confer or file their fee motions by December 1, 2022, the court found Greenpeace’s motion untimely.
Judge Tigar denied Greenpeace’s administrative motion about the briefing schedule and struck Greenpeace’s attorney-fee motion. The court also stated that Greenpeace was not entitled to the fees it had been awarded because it did not follow the required procedures.
The detailed version
- Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International · No. 4:17-cv-02824
- Jon Tigar
- June 6, 2023
Background
Defendants Daniel Brindis, Greenpeace International, Greenpeace, Inc., Amy Moas, and Rolf Skar, collectively called “Greenpeace” in the order, filed an administrative motion asking the court to maintain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of handling anticipated attorney-fee motions. Resolute opposed that request, arguing that fee motions were untimely because Magistrate Judge Westmore had set a December 1, 2022 deadline.
Before ruling on the administrative motion, the court received Greenpeace’s attorney-fee motion on June 1, 2023. Greenpeace argued that its motion was timely because the district court’s April 2023 order addressing the sanctions appeal confirmed that fees were warranted, and because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) should control. Greenpeace also argued that Judge Westmore’s order required the parties to meet and confer about the fee amount and file motions if they could not agree, making it reasonable to wait until after the sanctions appeal.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter do not stay, or pause, the order’s operation. The parties therefore remained required to comply with Judge Westmore’s deadlines while the sanctions appeal was pending.
The court found that the parties had failed to meet and confer about the fee amount, failed to file their fee motions by December 1, 2022, and had not requested an extension. Although Judge Westmore had awarded Greenpeace attorney’s fees and the district court later concluded that awarding fees was proper, Greenpeace still had to follow the order’s procedural requirements to obtain those fees. Because Greenpeace did not do so, the court found its fee motion untimely and stated that Greenpeace was not entitled to the awarded fees.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Greenpeace’s administrative motion, ECF No. 545, and struck Greenpeace’s motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 549. The order did not state that either ruling was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.