Core and Main, LP v. McCabe

Background

The court had previously granted Ron McCabe and Dakota Supply Group, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Counts II through V of Core and Main, LP’s complaint, but denied the motion as to Count I. Core and Main then filed a notice voluntarily dismissing Count I under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court ordered that dismissal without prejudice, and the Clerk entered judgment on January 4, 2022. Core and Main filed a notice of appeal on January 20, 2022.

Defendants moved to alter, amend, or correct the January 4 judgment so that it expressly included the earlier dismissal of Counts II through V. In the alternative, they asked for an extension of time to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Motion to Amend the Judgment

Core and Main argued that the pending appeal deprived the district court of authority to amend the judgment. The court rejected that argument. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows a court to correct a clerical mistake or an omission in a judgment, and the court explained that no permission from the appeals court was needed because defendants filed their motion within 28 days after judgment was entered.

The court also concluded that amendment was unnecessary. When Counts II through V were dismissed, Count I was still unresolved, so entering a final judgment at that time would have been premature. After Core and Main voluntarily dismissed Count I, the earlier dismissals merged into the judgment and became final for purposes of appeal. The court therefore found no error in the January 4 judgment warranting correction and denied defendants’ motion to amend it.

Request for More Time to Seek Fees and Costs

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B)(i), defendants generally had 14 days after entry of judgment to move for attorneys’ fees. Their deadline was January 18, 2022. They did not file a fee motion by that date and did not request an extension until after the deadline had expired.

Because the request was late, defendants had to show “excusable neglect,” meaning a legally sufficient reason for missing the deadline. The court determined that defendants’ delay resulted from a mistake about the scope and finality of the judgment, and that mistakes of law generally do not qualify as excusable neglect. The court also found that extending the deadline would delay the proceedings and unfairly prejudice Core and Main, which was seeking appellate review of time-sensitive issues involving a limited-time noncompete provision. The court therefore denied the request for an extension.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied defendants’ motion to alter, amend, or correct the judgment and denied, in the alternative, their request for an extension of time to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.