In the Matter of the Trusts established under the Pooling and Servicing…
In the Matter of the Trusts established under the Pooling and Servicing Agreements
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-01998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re Trusts established under the Pooling and Servicing Agreements: Judge Failla declined to preserve a fee claim in the judgment and invited a post-appeal fee schedule.
The parties, especially Appaloosa, CWC, and the GSEs, concerning whether and when to seek attorneys’ fees and costs.
What happened
In the Matter of the Trusts Established under the Pooling and Servicing Agreements concerns the final order after the Court’s earlier ruling on the parties’ summary-judgment motions. The Court had granted CWC’s and the GSEs’ motions and denied Appaloosa’s motion for partial summary judgment.
The parties disagreed about whether the final order and judgment should preserve Appaloosa’s ability to seek attorneys’ fees and costs. CWC and the GSEs said the judgment should not address that issue.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla decided that the judgment did not need a provision preserving Appaloosa’s right to seek fees and costs. She noted that a fee motion ordinarily could be filed within 14 days after judgment, but invited the parties to propose deferring fee motions until after any appeal from the judgment.
The detailed version
- In the Matter of the Trusts established under the Pooling and Servicing… · No. 1:17-cv-01998
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 27, 2020
Background
On March 19, 2020, the Court issued an opinion and order resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. It granted CWC’s and the GSEs’ motions for summary judgment and denied Appaloosa’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Court also resolved competing motions to exclude. On April 24, 2020, the parties submitted proposed final orders and judgments.
Dispute over fees
The parties largely agreed on the proposed language but disagreed about whether the final order and judgment should include a provision preserving Appaloosa’s ability to seek attorneys’ fees and costs. CWC and the GSEs argued that the final order and judgment should not address attorneys’ fees and costs.
Court’s ruling
The Court concluded that the final order and judgment did not need to include a provision preserving Appaloosa’s right to seek attorneys’ fees and costs. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(e), the Court explained that entry of judgment should not be delayed, and the time for appeal should not be extended, to determine costs or award fees.
The Court stated that it retained limited authority to resolve an attorneys’ fee motion while an appeal was pending. It did not expect to resolve a fee petition in a way that would allow the fee issue to be considered together with the appeal on the underlying merits.
The Court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B)(i) ordinarily requires a fee motion to be filed no later than 14 days after entry of judgment. The Court also recognized that this deadline could be changed by statute or court order. Because resolution of any appeal would likely clarify the fee issue, the Court invited the parties to discuss proposing a schedule under which fee motions would follow resolution of the appeal. The opinion does not state that the Court set such a schedule or awarded fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.