Knopf v. Esposito
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:17-cv-05833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Knopf v. Esposito, Judge Cote denied plaintiffs’ requests for immediate judgments because interest, fees, costs, and disbursements remained unresolved.
Norma Knopf and Michael Knopf, whose motions for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) were denied; the defendants were Frank M. Esposito, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Nathaniel H. Akerman, Edward S. Feldman, and Michael Hayden Sanford.
What happened
In Knopf v. Esposito, Norma Knopf and Michael Knopf accepted two offers of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The offers said that interest, costs—including attorney’s fees—and disbursements would be determined later.
The plaintiffs then asked the court to enter judgments under Rule 54(b), which can make a decision final before the entire case ends. The court explained that such a judgment cannot be entered while damages connected to the claim, including potentially recoverable attorney’s fees, remain unsettled.
Judge Denise Cote denied both motions for entry of judgment. The opinion states that the motions were denied because the Rule 68 offers left interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and disbursements for later determination.
The detailed version
- Knopf v. Esposito · No. 1:17-cv-05833
- Sarah Netburn
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
On February 18 and March 1, 2021, Norma Knopf and Michael Knopf filed notices accepting two offers of judgment made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Both offers stated that interest, costs including attorney’s fees, and disbursements would be determined after acceptance. The plaintiffs filed motions on February 26 and March 1 seeking entry of judgment under Rule 54(b).
Legal standard
The court explained that a valid Rule 68 offer must allow judgment for both damages caused by the challenged conduct and costs accrued at the time of the offer. When an offer does not specify the amount of costs, the court may need to add an amount sufficient to cover them. The court noted that, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, attorney’s fees may be awarded as part of the costs in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court also explained that Rule 54(b) permits entry of judgment on a claim only when all damages arising from that claim have been fixed. Unresolved attorney’s fees and other damages can prevent a judgment from being final for purposes of Rule 54(b).
Ruling
Because both Rule 68 offers left interest, costs including attorney’s fees, and disbursements to be determined later, the court held that the damages were not fully fixed. The court therefore ordered that the plaintiffs’ February 26 and March 1 motions for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) were denied.
Disposition
The motions for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) were denied. The opinion does not state that they were denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.