Perez v. AC Roosevelt Food Corp., No. 13-497 (2d Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants for overtime wages. The parties eventually agreed to a settlement. The district court approved the settlement and granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. Defendants subsequently appealed the district court's decision on plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely where the entry of judgment did not restart the time to appeal.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 10, 2013.
Download PDF
13-497-cv Perez v. AC Roosevelt Food Corp. 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _______________ 5 August Term, 2013 6 7 8 (Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: November 6, 2013 ) Docket No. 13-497 _______________ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MIGUEL G. PEREZ, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by AC Roosevelt Food Corp., d/b/a/ Champion Food Supermarket or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by AC Roosevelt Food Corp. and Antonio Collado, 24 25 Before: WINTER, JACOBS, STRAUB, Circuit Judges. _____________ Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AC ROOSEVELT FOOD CORPORATION, or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by AC Roosevelt Food Corp. doing business as Champion Food Supermarket, and ANTONIO COLLADO, Defendants-Appellants. _______________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson, Judge), granting a motion for attorneys fees. We hold that the appeal is not timely. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ANDREW SQUIRE, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellants. 15 16 Judge JACOBS dissents in a separate opinion. _______________ LADONNA M. LUSHER, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee. _______________ STRAUB, Circuit Judge: AC Roosevelt Food Corporation and Antonio Collado appeal from an 17 August 13, 2012 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 18 of New York (John Gleeson, Judge), as memorialized in a January 7, 2013 19 judgment, granting Miguel Perez s motion for attorneys fees. Because the entry 20 of judgment did not restart the time to appeal, we DISMISS the appeal as 21 untimely. 22 The facts of this case as relevant to this appeal are as follows. Perez 23 commenced this action for overtime wages on October 20, 2010. Defendants 24 initially failed to appear and default was entered on January 18, 2011. Perez 2 1 sought certification as a class on February 22, 2011, which was granted on May 3, 2 2011, and notice published. Defendants appeared on October 31, 2011, and 3 default was vacated. The class was voluntarily de-certified on February 9, 2012, 4 and a settlement reached by June 1, 2012. On August 13, 2012, the District Court 5 approved the settlement, granted Perez s motion for attorneys fees, and entered 6 an order which stated that [t]he Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to 7 close the case. Defendants failed to pay, and on November 8, 2012, Perez filed 8 to reopen the case and have judgment entered. This motion was granted on 9 November 19, 2012, and judgment entered on January 7, 2013. Defendants 10 notice of appeal was filed on February 6, 2013. In their appeal, Defendants 11 challenge only the District Court s decision on Perez s motion for attorneys fees. 12 Perez argues that Defendants appeal is untimely under Federal Rule of 13 Appellate Procedure 4. The time limit provided for by Rule 4 is jurisdictional in 14 civil cases. M.E.S., Inc. v. Snell, 712 F.3d 666, 668 (2d Cir. 2013); see Napoli v. 15 Town of New Windsor, 600 F.3d 168, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) ( The timely filing of a 16 notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement. (internal quotation 17 marks and brackets omitted)). It is common ground that jurisdiction is a 3 1 threshold matter that must exist before a court may decide the merits of an 2 appeal. Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 718 F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir. 2013). 3 [W]e have consistently held that an order awarding attorneys fees and 4 costs is not an appealable final order until the amount of fees and costs has been 5 set by the district court. Honeywell Int l, Inc. v. Purolator Prods. Co., 468 F.3d 162, 6 164 (2d Cir. 2006); see O & G Indus., Inc. v. Nat l R.R. Passenger Corp., 537 F.3d 153, 7 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (applying the same rule). In this case, the amount of fees and 8 costs was set by the District Court s order of August 13, 2012. 9 Rule 4(a)(1)(A) provides that a notice of appeal must be filed . . . within 30 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Entry of a judgment 11 or order, for purposes of this Rule 4(a), depends upon whether Federal Rule of 12 Civil Procedure 58(a) requires a separate document. Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(7). 13 Where a separate document is required, entry occurs when the judgment or 14 order is entered in the civil docket and either 150 days have passed or the 15 judgment or order is set forth on a separate document. Fed R. App. Pro. 16 4(a)(7)(ii). Where a separate document is not required, the judgment or order is 17 considered to have been entered when the judgment or order is entered in the 18 civil docket. Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(7)(i). 4 A separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion 1 2 . . . for attorney s fees under Rule 54. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3); see Feldman v. Olin 3 Corp., 673 F.3d 515, 516-17 (7th Cir. 2012) ( Rule 58(a)(3) has provided that no 4 separate document is required for an order disposing of a motion for attorney s 5 fees under Rule 54, and [a]ll that the reference to Rule 54 can sensibly be 6 understood to mean is that Rule 54, the rule on judgments, makes awards of 7 attorneys fees one type of judgment and Rule 58 designates it as a type of 8 judgment for which a separate judgment document is not required. (internal 9 quotation marks omitted)).1 It follows that the order setting the amount of 10 attorneys fees was entered for the purposes of Rule 4 when it was entered in 11 the civil docket, i.e., on August 13, 2012. The thirty days provided for by Rule 12 4(a)(1)(A), therefore, had long since run when Defendants filed their notice of 13 appeal on February 6, 2013. Defendants argue that the thirty-day period should be measured from the 14 15 January 7, 2013 judgment rather than the August 13, 2012 order. However, a This rule serves to distinguish Bogaerts v. Shapiro (In re Litas International, Inc.), 316 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2003), which, as the dissent concedes, concerned satisfaction of Rule 58 under circumstances that did not implicate an exception to that rule. Nor do we believe that this is a case in which confusion was likely, as the District Court s August 13 order closed the case. 1 5 1 new or amended judgment may only renew the thirty-day limit if the later 2 judgment changes matters of substance, or resolves a genuine ambiguity, in a 3 judgment previously rendered. Priestley v. Headminder, Inc., 647 F.3d 497, 502 4 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); see FTC v. 5 Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U.S. 206, 211-12 (1952) ( Only when the 6 lower court changes matters of substance, or resolves a genuine ambiguity, in a 7 judgment previously rendered should the period within which an appeal must 8 be taken or a petition for certiorari filed begin to run anew. (internal footnotes 9 omitted)). 10 Indeed, even where a judgment has been vacated and a second entered, it 11 is the substance of the new judgment rather than the procedure that is 12 determinative of whether the appeal clock begins anew. See Cody, Inc. v. Town of 13 Woodbury, 179 F.3d 52, 54-55 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (holding that where the 14 two judgments are identical with respect to all questions of substantive rights 15 appeal could not lie from the second judgment even where the district court 16 vacated its original judgment ). 17 18 There can be no argument in this case that the January 7, 2013 judgment and the August 13, 2012 order are not identical in every way. No issue of 6 1 substance indeed, no issue of triviality differs between the two orders. It 2 follows that the entry of judgment did not reset Defendants time to appeal, that 3 the appeal was untimely, and that we lack jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, is 4 DISMISSED. 7 1 2 JACOBS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: This appeal challenges the reasonableness of an 3 attorney s fee award, and presents an issue as to 4 timeliness: the appeal is timely if calculated from the 5 entry of final judgment but untimely if calculated from the 6 earlier order to pay the fees. 7 Roosevelt had until 30 days after entry of final judgment to 8 file notice of appeal, I respectfully dissent from the 9 majority s dismissal and would affirm the district court s 10 Because I believe AC judgment on the merits. 11 12 13 I The August 13, 2012 order, which approved the 14 settlement agreement, granted Perez s motion for attorney s 15 fees, and directed the clerk to close the case, did not meet 16 the separate document requirement of Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 58 and was not labeled a judgment. 18 Civ. P. 58(a). 19 order can, without the subsequent entry of a Rule 58 final 20 judgment, and by the passage of time alone, deprive a would- 21 be appellant of its opportunity to seek review. 22 Supreme Court made clear, . . . it cannot. See Fed. R. The question is whether a self-executing 1 As the In re Litas 1 Int l, Inc., 316 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir. 2003). 2 requirement has not been waived. 3 Hampton, 83 F.3d 31, 33-34 (2d Cir. 1996). 4 The Rule 58 See Cooper v. Town of East The separate-document formality sought to relieve the 5 kind of uncertainty (raised in this case) where the opinion 6 or memorandum has not contained all the elements of a 7 judgment, or where the judge has later signed a formal 8 judgment, and it has become a matter of doubt whether the 9 purported entry of a judgment was effective, starting the 10 time running for post-verdict motions and for the purpose of 11 appeal. 12 (1978) (citation omitted). 13 formalism of the separate document requirement is to avoid 14 confusion as to when the clock starts for the purpose of an 15 appeal. 16 Bankers Trust Co. v. Mills, 435 U.S. 381, 384-85 The reason for adhering to the Cooper, 83 F.3d at 33. As the majority explains, a grant of attorney s fees is 17 an exception to the separate-document requirement. See Fed. 18 R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3). 19 collateral order does not render an appeal untimely if 20 appeal awaits entry of final judgment. 21 appeals, including this one, have held explicitly . . . 22 that failure to take an available collateral order appeal But the availability of appeal from a 2 [S]everal courts of 1 does not forfeit the right to review the order on appeal 2 from a [procedurally proper] final judgment on the merits. 3 15A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3911 (2d 4 ed.) (citing In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig. MDL No. 5 381, 818 F.2d 179, 181 (2d Cir. 1987) ( Even if the 6 [collateral] order was appealable under Cohen, there is 7 still no reason to bar an appeal from the [later] order, 8 which was clearly intended by the district court to be 9 final. )). 10 My view is confirmed by the grouping of the orders 11 specified in Rule 58(a). 12 often made after entry of judgment on the merits, and in 13 that respect is like other exceptions to the separate- 14 document rule, which are invariably made afterward. 15 case such as this, in which the attorney s fee award 16 precedes entry of the final judgment, an immediate appeal of 17 the attorney s fee would raise an issue as to prematurity: 18 how can the fee award be reviewed before the outcome on the 19 merits has been ascertained? 20 An award of attorney s fees is In a Accordingly, AC Roosevelt had until 30 days after the 21 January 7, 2013 entry of final judgment to file notice of 22 appeal. 23 2013. AC Roosevelt filed timely notice on February 6, 3 1 II 2 Because I consider AC Roosevelt s appeal timely, I 3 would reach the merits and affirm the district court s award 4 of attorney s fees. 5 The Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ) directs courts 6 to award prevailing plaintiffs reasonable attorney s fees 7 and costs. 8 537 F.3d 132, 151 (2d Cir. 2008); see 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 9 ( The court in such action shall, in addition to any Barfield v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 judgment awarded to . . . plaintiffs, allow a reasonable 11 attorney s fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the 12 action. ). 13 § 663(4) (McKinney 2011) ( In any civil action by an 14 employee . . ., the employee . . . shall have the right to 15 collect attorneys fees and costs incurred in enforcing any 16 court judgment. ). 17 New York Labor Law is the same. N.Y. Labor Law A party prevails in a FLSA suit if [it] succeed[s] on 18 any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of 19 the benefit . . . sought in bringing suit. 20 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (citation omitted). 21 plaintiff involved in litigation ultimately resolved by 22 settlement may still be entitled to an award of attorneys 23 4 Hensley v. A 1 fees as a prevailing party. 2 F.2d 101, 103-04 (2d Cir. 1991). 3 Lyte v. Sara Lee Corp., 950 The settlement agreement required payments totaling 4 $8,000 to Perez and another former employee, and explicitly 5 contemplated the pending motion for attorney s fees and 6 costs. 7 statutory framework. 8 9 Perez was therefore a prevailing party under the See Lyte, 950 F.2d at 104. We review attorneys fee awards for abuse of discretion. A district court abuses its discretion if it 10 (1) bases its decision on an error of law or uses the wrong 11 legal standard; (2) bases its decision on a clearly 12 erroneous factual finding; or (3) reaches a conclusion that, 13 though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a 14 clearly erroneous factual finding, cannot be located within 15 the range of permissible decisions. 16 R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal 17 quotation marks and citations omitted). 18 discretion--already one of the most deferential standards of 19 review--takes on special significance when reviewing fee 20 decisions because the district court, which is intimately 21 familiar with the nuances of the case, is in a far better 22 position to make such decisions than is an appellate court, 23 which must work from a cold record. 5 Millea v. Metro-N. Abuse of McDaniel v. Cnty. of 1 Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal 2 quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). 3 Both this Court and the Supreme Court have held that 4 the lodestar--the product of a reasonable hourly rate and 5 the reasonable number of hours required by the case--creates 6 a presumptively reasonable fee. 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 that the percentage of the fund method is more 9 appropriate; but here there is no common fund because the 10 Millea, 658 F.3d at 166-67 AC Roosevelt argues class was decertified prior to settlement negotiations. 11 The district court reviewed the parties submissions 12 and contemporaneous lawyer time records; acknowledged the 13 work involved in litigating what was originally a class 14 action, notifying class members, and engaging with a 15 defendant who did not appear in the case for almost a year; 16 and concluded that the request for attorney s fees was 17 reasonable in all respects. 18 discretion. 19 This was no abuse of Accordingly, I would affirm. 6
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.
