Ingram et al v. AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc., No. 1:2014cv00142 - Document 55 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER denying 54 MOTION for Reconsideration re 53 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Motion to Strike filed by AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc.. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/26/2016. (pts)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ingram et al v. AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc. Doc. 55 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION * MARK INGRAM, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kellie Ingram, * * * Plaintiff, * * v, l:14-cv-142 * AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION, * INC., * * Defendant. * ORDER Presently before reconsideration. The the Court motion is questions time limit for requesting attorneys' Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) applies defendant's whether the motion for fourteen-day fees under Federal Rule of to attorneys' fees awarded under Georgia law by a district court sitting in diversity. The Court, once again, finds that it does. I. Georgia law defendant shall if the that, recover attorneys' plaintiff subsequently 68(b)(1). provides BACKGROUND rejects suffers a under conditions, settlement judgment. O.C.G.A. Defendant made a timely settlement offer, rejected the offer, a fees and litigation expenses reasonable an adverse certain offer § and 9-11- Plaintiff and Plaintiff subsequently lost at summary Dockets.Justia.com judgment before this Court. The Court judgment decision on March 1, 2016. The Federal requesting attorneys' fourteen days 54(d)(2), but requesting however, § Rules after 68's Civil to file entry of judgment, § fees. require motion parties sets previous with Fed. 9-11-68 (b) (1) A summary 46.) Procedure a its no version 31, (2005). 2016, Defendant filed presumably under the thirty-day provision a fourteen-day time limit Defendant did file Plaintiff and (Doc. 53.) of opinion that governed. (Doc. not denied imposed by Rule a reply brief. Defendant's § motion for fees the § on 9-11- Plaintiff it exceeded the Court for 9-11-68, O.C.G.A. 50.) 54(d)(2). The for (Doc. 52.) agreed with attorneys' fees Defendant now moves for reconsideration. II. LEGAL STANDARD "In considering a motion for reconsideration, balance the need for Ass'n Local 30, 1423, No. 2013) . a court must finality and judicial economy against the need to render just decisions." Jan. Proc. deadline motion opposed Defendant's motion on the grounds that Ga. Court Civ. R. the provided a thirty-day window to request fees. 9-11-68(b)(1) March (Doc. fees O.C.G.A. attorneys' of entered Collins v. Int'l Longshoremen's 2:09-cv-093, Generally, 2013 WL a motion 393096, at *1 (S.D. for reconsideration should only be granted if there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest Deposits Conduit, 22735, 2008 accord Bryant 2010); Merrett v. WL WL LLC v. 5289095, at Jones, 696 *1 reconsideration *l-2 F. Liberty Mut. at is (M.D. an Insured Servs., No. Index Powered Fin. 5691349, v. injustice." (S.D. Supp. Ins. Fla. Fla. 2d Co., extraordinary Mar. 1313, No. Sept. LLC, 14, 1320 2008); (N.D. 3:10-cv-1195, 19, 2013). remedy to 07- Ga. 2013 Because be employed sparingly, the movant must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature decision. Voter Inc., No. 31, to induce Verified, 6:09-cv-1969, 2011) . the Inc. Court v. to reverse Election 2011 WL 3862450, Sys. at *2 its prior & Software, (M.D. Fla. Aug. A motion for reconsideration should not be used to present arguments already heard and dismissed, legal theories or to offer new or evidence that a party could have presented before the original decision. S.E.C. v. Mannion, No. l:10-cv- 3374, 2013 WL 5999657, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 12, 2013). III. In its motion, warranted for three Defendant reasons. ANALYSIS argues First, that Defendant 54 does not apply to § 9-11-68. Second, even if Rule 54 does apply, fees would contravene reconsideration argues that is Rule Defendant contends that denying the motion for attorneys' its spirit. Third, Defendant argues that even if Rule 54 does apply and denial would not contradict its spirit, Local Rule 54.2(c) provides thirty days for filing motions for' attorneys' fees. The Court finds none of these arguments persuasive. A. The Court begins with Plaintiff's argument does not apply to fees requested under O.C.G.A. Federal courts have that Rule 54 § 9-11-68(b)(1). concluded that the attorneys' fee provision of § 9-11-68 is a substantive rule of law that applies to claims based on Georgia law and diversity jurisdiction. 580 F. Supp. Inc. v. (S.D. Ga. Mar. No. 30, under the federal courts' Wheatley v. Moe's Southwest Grill, LLC, 2d 1324, Abraham, heard 1327-29 CV (N.D. 210-157, 2012). Ga. 2012 2008); Gowen Oil Co., WL 1098568, Plaintiff argues, at however, *2, n.4 that no federal court has held that the fourteen-day deadline imposed by Rule 54 applies to attorneys' fees awarded under § 9-11-68. This Court suspects the lack of case law has more to do with the certainty of the answer than the difficulty of the question. The civil answer, procedure of course, covers the is that issue when a federal in dispute, it rule of governs. Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 (2010) . The Rule Enabling Act grants the Supreme Court the power "to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts" provided that "such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right." § 2072. Because the Federal Rules of Civil 28 U.S.C. Procedure are promulgated under the authority force of federal statute. 1, 13 (1941) . Thus, Federal Rule of dispute will prevail that the federal Enabling Plumer, Act 380 virtue of Procedure over a they constitutional 460, 471 have Wilson & Co., the which state Act, Supremacy covers procedural Clause, issue rule Shady terms Grove, a in provided restrictions." (1965); the 312 U.S. the rule "transgresses neither the nor U.S. this Sibbach v. by Civil of of the Hanna v. U.S. at 559 406-07. Rule 54 does not transgress the Rules Enabling Act because it governs only the mechanical method by which attorneys' are awarded. See Shady Grove, 559 U.S. at 407. fees A rule will not transgress the Act as long as it regulates only the process of enforcing rights and duties under substantive law and does not alter the underlying rights and duties themselves. U.S. at 14; see Shady Grove, 559 U.S. at 407. Sibbach, 312 Although Rule 54 might appear to have altered the Defendant's substantive rights, it has must not. take Rule 54 states to properly clearly the enforce the steps that substantive each party rights granted them by the State of Georgia. See Shady Grove, 559 U.S. at 407- 08. to That it gave the parties fourteen days enforce that right, rather than thirty days (or more), does not mean that it abridged the substantive rights of the parties. See id. A procedural rule might become outcome determinative in any case, but that is not reason enough to declare that it abridges a substantive right. solely on whether a insufficient is in some ^outcome determinative.'" might avail however, within itself of failed to its sense at the 466-69. outcome Focusing of an issue "every procedural Id. at 468 right to is variation (emphasis in original). attorneys' follow that path. However, fourteen-day time had limit fees. Admittedly, the choice between Rule determinative. the U.S. Rule 54 provided a defined path by which Defendant the proceeding, outcome 380 rule determines because In this case, of Hanna, 54 by would not have been outcome determinative. this and § Defendant set at Defendant, 9-11-68 filed Rule is a motion the 54, Thus, stage choice Defendant, not Rule 54, is to blame for abridging its substantive right. Neither does Rule has 54 transgress the Constitution. a "long-recognized power rules for federal courts ... to prescribe even though some of at 473. This power flows housekeeping those inevitably differ from comparable state rules." Congress rules Hanna, will 380 U.S. from "the constitutional provision for a federal court system" as augmented by the necessary and proper clause. It Id. outlines at 472. the Rule timeline 54 exemplifies a housekeeping rule. by which parties are to make their post-judgment motions for various costs and ensures the orderly conclusion of Constitution the case. "would be To to declare disembowel Rule 54 either a violation the the Constitution's grant of power over federal procedure or Congress' exercise that power in the Enabling Act." of attempt to See id. at 473-74. The Court deadline holds, for filing for attorneys' therefore, attorneys' that Rule 54's fees applies fourteen-day to an application fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68. B. The Court now moves to the Defendant's second argument- that denying attorneys' fees contravenes the spirit of Rule 54. Defendant the argues that fourteen-day provision) informed of the (Doc. 54 at 2 2d 1206, 1210 motion faith on claim before the time Rule 54(d) (2) (b) for appeal has (citing Leidel v. Ameripride Servs., (D. Kan. 2004)).) offer, purely procedural would (the elapsed." 322 F. Supp. Because Plaintiff had notice of fees penalty from the moment they denied settlement delay of is "to assure that the opposing party is the possible attorneys' Defendant's purpose violate Defendant grounds the due spirit argues, to of a denying the sixteen-day good the rule. The Court disagrees. The best place to start when interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Creative Procedure Non-violence starting point its language. Civil for construed, the v. 490 U.S. 730, See 739 Cmty. (1989) interpretation of a statute instructs ensure themselves. for ("The is always The first rule of the Federal Rules of administered, to rules Reid, [the] . . ."). Procedure parties is the and the Court that employed just, all by speedy, rules the court and determination of every action and proceeding." "should and be the inexpensive Fed. R. Civ. P. fees 1. Rule 54 mandates that . . . must be made by motion "a for attorney's . . . not later than 14 after the entry of the judgment." (B) . claim Fed. R. Civ. P. days 54(d)(2)(A)- Construing Rule 54 as required by Rule 1, the Court finds that it must apply Rule 54's terms. In addition unambiguous, 254 to the fact Connecticut (1992) (stating that Nat'l that the language of v. Germain, 503 Bank "if the words of [a] Rule U.S. of Rule demanded by Rule 1. results in a parties were just on 54 falls within the rules of is 249, statute unambiguous . . . [the] judicial inquiry is complete"), application 54 are a strict construction Following the timeline provided in Rule 54 determination notice and had of the equal required under the Federal Rules. action access to because the both deadlines It also ensures a speedy and inexpensive determination of the proceeding because it mandates that all matters relating to collecting attorneys' fees completed in an efficient manner and without undue delay. this Court has 54(d). To do Federal Rules ^guidelines' Caribbean: 2003). The no choice otherwise of Civil rather Curse but would adhere the to establish Procedure than of to actual Black are the a Pearl precedent "more rules." timeline what (Buena Thus, of that you'd Pirates Vista are of Rule the call the Pictures c. Defendant's supersedes days final Federal after argument Rule judgment 54 to is that and provides file motions Local for for Rule 54.2(c) a period of attorneys' thirty fees. In relevant part, Local Rule 54.2 provides: (b) The motion Federal Rule with Clerk the shall of of be Civil the filed pursuant Procedure Court and to 54(d)(2) served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 upon the parties against whom the award is sought. (c) Within 30 days (or such other period as the Court may prescribe) after entry of the final judgment, the movant shall file and serve a detailed specification and itemization of the requested award, with appropriate affidavits and other supporting documentation. LR 54.2(b)-(c), Local Rule two reasons. SDGa. 54.2(b) First, does not supersede Federal the plain text of Local Rule Rule 54 for 54 provides that the motion for fees must first be filed pursuant to Federal Rule 54, that is, within fourteen days after judgment. The thirty-day period described in Local Rule 54.2(c) applies not to the initial motion for attorneys' documentation needed for fees, but to any supplemental an award of attorney fees. Second, a local rule cannot supplant a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Brown v. Crawford County, Ga., 1992). While each district 960 F.2d 1002, 1008-09 court may create (11th Cir. local rules governing practices not covered in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these rules must be consistent with the federal 1l rules. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 83(a)(1). 54.2 were susceptible to the Thus, even reading Defendant if Local employs, Rule such a reading is not allowable. IV. For the reasons CONCLUSION stated above, Defendant's motion to reconsider. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, September, (Doc. the Court DENIES 54.) Georgia, this £>\ffi^ day of 2016. HONOHABXp^. RANDAL HALL UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 10 the
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
