Darryl Pierce v. Visteon Corporation
791 F.3d 782
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Visteon failed to timely deliver COBRA notices to some former employees; a district court certified a class of 1,593 and found 741 received untimely notice (average 376 days late).
- District court awarded $2,500 statutory penalties to each late-notice class member (≈ $1.85M) and later awarded class counsel $302,780 in attorneys’ fees under ERISA §1132(g).
- The district court issued its merits decision on June 25, 2013 but did not promptly enter a Rule 58 judgment; Appellate Rule 4(a)(7) deems judgment entered 150 days after such a decision, making the appeal deadline December 23, 2013.
- Plaintiffs filed a Rule 58(e) request to treat a timely fee motion as tolling the appeal period; the district court denied that request on November 26, 2013 and plaintiffs did not file a protective appeal within the remaining 27 days.
- Because of Bowles and Appellate Rule 4(a)(7), the court held the merits judgment became unappealable; the pending appeal was therefore limited to the attorneys’ fees award.
- Lead counsel Weldy sought supplemental fees from the class (common‑fund theory) in addition to the statutory award; the Seventh Circuit rejected that approach and affirmed the statutory fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from merits after district court failed to enter judgment promptly | Plaintiffs argued denial of Rule 58(e) relief and judge’s statements misled counsel; appeal should cover merits | Visteon argued Rule 4(a)(7) deemed judgment entered and plaintiffs missed the December 23, 2013 deadline | Held: Appellate review of merits is barred; appeal is limited to fee award because plaintiffs failed to timely appeal under Rule 4(a)(7) and Bowles controls |
| Effect of Rule 23(c)(3) on finality/timing of class judgment | Plaintiffs implied Rule 23(c)(3) might postpone finality | Visteon showed class was defined, notified, no opt-outs, and a stipulation listed all members; Rule 23(c)(3)(B) satisfied earlier | Held: Rule 23(c)(3) did not postpone finality; time to appeal ran out December 23, 2013 |
| Whether counsel could recover additional fees from class (common‑fund) when a fee‑shifting statute applies | Weldy sought supplemental common‑fund recovery from class in addition to ERISA statutory fee | Visteon opposed awarding fees from the class when ERISA authorized a reasonable fee from the defendant | Held: Common‑fund recovery from the class is not available where a fee‑shifting statute provides a reasonable fee; statute displaces common‑law doctrine |
| Whether counsel may receive both statutory fee and a class slice (multiplier/contingent‑style recovery) | Weldy argued he should be able to tap the class fund (as in contingent arrangements) | Visteon argued this would overcompensate counsel and undermine fee‑shifting policies and Dague | Held: Court rejected duplicative recovery; awarding more than the reasonable statutory fee would be improper and would conflict with Dague |
Key Cases Cited
- Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, 134 S. Ct. 773 (Sup. Ct.) (timeliness/separability of fee and merits appeals)
- Budi‑nich v. Becton Dickinson Co., 486 U.S. 196 (Sup. Ct.) (fee awards treated as separately appealable in some contexts)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Sup. Ct.) (appeal deadlines are jurisdictional; no equitable tolling)
- United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216 (Sup. Ct.) (pre‑Rule 4(a)(7) precedent allowing indefinite delay by district court)
- Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 (Sup. Ct.) (unique‑circumstances / judicial assurance tolling doctrine)
- Harris Truck Lines v. Cherry Meat Packers, 371 U.S. 215 (Sup. Ct.) (unique‑circumstances doctrine context)
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (Sup. Ct.) (requirements for judicial assurance to toll appeal deadlines)
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (ERISA attorney’s‑fee standard)
- Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on using multipliers in fee‑shifting awards)
- Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (Sup. Ct.) (common‑fund doctrine supporting fee awards from a recovery fund)
- Evans v. Evanston, 941 F.2d 473 (7th Cir.) (advising against charging class when statutory fee award applies)
Disposition: Appeal limited to attorneys’ fees; statutory fee award ($302,780) affirmed.