Eladio Cruz v. Tracy Fulton, 714 F. App'x 393

The district court held attorney Louis R. Koerner in contempt and ordered him to pay all fees, costs, and expenses incurred by defendant Tracy Fulton from Sept. 3, 2014 to Sept. 28, 2016, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 11.
The district court administratively closed the case until Koerner complied with the monetary sanction.
Koerner appealed, seeking immediate review and reversal of the contempt order and the administrative closure.
Fulton opposed review, arguing the contempt order was not final and therefore not appealable because the monetary sanction had not been quantified to a sum certain.
The Fifth Circuit considered whether it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 given the unquantified award and evaluated Koerner’s arguments based on local rules and the collateral-order doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contempt order is immediately appealable under § 1291 despite lacking a sum certain	Koerner: order is appealable now; local rules foreclose Fulton from timely moving to quantify fees so district court cannot later fix a sum certain	Fulton: order not final and not appealable because fees/costs were not reduced to a sum certain	Court: No appellate jurisdiction — unquantified fees mean order is not a final, appealable judgment under § 1291
Whether collateral-order or other doctrines permit immediate appeal despite unquantified sanctions	Koerner: collateral-order doctrine applies because order conclusively resolves an important separate issue that would be effectively unreviewable later	Fulton: contempt orders fall into their own category; collateral-order does not save an unquantified sanction	Court: Collateral-order inapplicable; contempt orders are treated under contempt-specific rules and here the dollar amount remains unresolved, so no immediate appeal

Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1993) (district court finality and appellate jurisdiction principles)
Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1936) (civil-contempt orders against parties are not final)
U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1988) (nonparty contempt can be appealed under § 1291)
S. Ry. Co. v. Lanham, 403 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1968) (criminal contempt is immediately appealable)
Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1922) (contempt characterizations affect appealability)
Thornton v. Gen. Motors Corp., 136 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 1998) (unquantified attorney-fee awards are not final appealable orders)
S. Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 986 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1993) (fee/cost orders not reviewable until reduced to a sum certain)
In re Deepwater Horizon, 793 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (describing collateral-order test)
Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., 527 U.S. 198 (U.S. 1999) (Supreme Court limits case‑by‑case collateral-order expansion)
Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1994) (appealability determined by category of order)
A-Mark Auction Galleries, Inc. v. Am. Numismatic Ass'n, 233 F.3d 895 (5th Cir. 2000) (discussing appealability of discovery/contempt-related orders)