969 F.3d 564
5th Cir.2020Background
- Zimmerman, a former Austin city councilman, prevailed on some First Amendment §1983 claims after a July 2016 bench trial.
- His Rule 59(e) motion was denied Oct. 26, 2016, and he did not file a Rule 54(d)(2) motion for attorneys’ fees within the 14-day deadline.
- Parties cross‑appealed; this Court affirmed the judgment and declined to decide waiver on the first appeal; certiorari was later denied.
- The district court had previously deferred disposition of attorney‑fee issues pending any Supreme Court action on certiorari; after certiorari denial Zimmerman moved for fees (trial and first appeal) in district court.
- A magistrate judge found—and the district court adopted—that Zimmerman waived trial fees by failing to file timely; the court also denied appellate fees; Zimmerman appealed, arguing lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and error on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the district court have subject‑matter jurisdiction to decide the fee motion? | Ancillary enforcement jurisdiction (inherent/common‑law) covers fee disputes and supports the district court's consideration. | §1367 supplemental jurisdiction had disappeared after judgment; Kokkonen limits ancillary jurisdiction. | Yes. The court had uncodified ancillary enforcement jurisdiction to decide the collateral fee issue. |
| 2. Were fees incurred at trial waived by failing to comply with Rule 54(d)(2)’s 14‑day deadline? | Local rule discretion and lack of prejudice justified excusing the late filing. | Failure to file within the 14‑day period constitutes waiver. | Waived. Zimmerman’s failure to timely move under Rule 54(d)(2) forfeited trial fee recovery. |
| 3. Could Zimmerman recover fees for the first (initial) appeal despite no district‑court filing within 14 days? | He could have reserved or sought appellate fees later; district or this Court could award appellate fees. | No timely district‑court filing and no new judgment; he didn’t request appellate fees in this Court per the applicable appellate rule. | Denied. No timely request below; no new judgment, and Zimmerman did not follow the available appellate procedures. |
| 4. Did the district court abuse any discretion in refusing to excuse the late fee requests under local rules? | Local rule’s “may be deemed untimely” language required discretionary consideration and relief. | The rule permits deeming untimely; the court permissibly concluded waiver. | No abuse. Even if discretion existed, the court did not err in finding waiver and denying fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (limits on ancillary enforcement jurisdiction and when independent jurisdictional basis is required)
- Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996) (ancillary/supplemental jurisdiction can disappear after original judgment)
- White v. N.H. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (attorney’s‑fee claims are collateral/separable from merits)
- National City Golf Fin. v. Scott, 899 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2018) (codified supplemental jurisdiction vanishes after dismissal/entry of judgment)
- Energy Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. City of Alexandria, 739 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussion of ancillary jurisdiction types)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (federal courts may consider collateral issues like fees after action ends)
- United Indus., Inc. v. Simon‑Hartley, Ltd., 91 F.3d 762 (5th Cir. 1996) (failure to raise fees below does not necessarily bar later district‑court consideration)
- Marston v. Red River Levee & Drainage Dist., 632 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1980) (procedure for appellate attorney’s‑fee requests and remand practice)
- Instone Travel Tech Marine & Offshore v. Int’l Shipping Partners, Inc., 334 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2003) (district court determines amount of appellate fees following appeal)