Fontanillas-Lopez v. Morell Bauzá Cartagena & Dapena, LLC
832 F.3d 50
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Lourdes Fontanillas-Lopez sued her former employer MBCD and individual defendants for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and related Puerto Rico claims; after discovery, individual federal claims were dismissed, leaving MBCD on the federal claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to MBCD on the federal claims and dismissed supplemental Puerto Rico claims without prejudice.
- Defendants sought and the district court awarded $53,662.50 in attorneys' fees for defendant work performed after the point the court concluded Fontanillas’s claims became frivolous (post-deposition period).
- Fontanillas filed an overlength Rule 59(e) motion (to alter the fees judgment) and an overlength Rule 60(b) motion (to relieve the summary judgment); the district court denied leave to file overlength filings, struck the original motions, invited re-filing within page limits, and later denied the refiled motions on the merits.
- On appeal Fontanillas challenged: (1) denial of leave to exceed local page limits, (2) the attorneys’ fees award, (3) denial of her Rule 59(e) motion, and (4) denial of her Rule 60(b) motion. The First Circuit affirmed all rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to file overlength Rule 59(e)/60(b) filings | Needed extra pages to address many factual issues and quote evidence; district court had previously allowed defendants overlength filing | District court has broad discretion to enforce local page limits and need not grant exceptions absent persuasive justification | No abuse of discretion; striking was permissible where plaintiff gave no persuasive reason for extra pages |
| Whether district court properly awarded attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendants under Title VII | Fees improper because suit was not frivolous at filing; also argued Kay v. Ehrler bars recovery for work by an in-house attorney | Defendants were prevailing parties and fees are appropriate where plaintiff continued litigation after claims became frivolous; organization may recover for in-house counsel work | Fees award affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in finding post-deposition litigation frivolous; Kay does not bar a firm from recovering for in-house counsel work |
| Whether notice of appeal as to fees was timely despite initial striking of Rule 59(e) motion | Timely Rule 59(e) tolled appeal period; striking the motion should not negate tolling | Striking rendered the timely motion a nullity and did not toll the appeal period | Timely appeal: court held an order striking a Rule 59(e) motion disposes of it and starts the 30-day appeal clock; jurisdiction proper |
| Whether denial of Rule 60(b) relief from summary judgment was erroneous | Alleged fraud, misconduct, and legal/methodological mistakes warranted extraordinary relief | Movant failed to show clear-and-convincing evidence of misconduct that impaired presentation, and claims rehashed prior arguments or legal errors that are not Rule 60(b)(1) grounds | No abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b) relief properly denied as arguments were rehashes, underdeveloped, or not of the extraordinary character required |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (standards for awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing Title VII defendants — only for frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless claims or continued litigation after claims clearly became so)
- Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d 220 (1st Cir. 1994) (treatment of noncompliant filings and effect on tolling appeal periods)
- McKenna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 693 F.3d 207 (1st Cir. 2012) (untimely civil appeals are barred; timing is jurisdictional)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (preference for resolving disputes on the merits and interpretive guidance on procedural rules)
- Lamboy-Ortiz v. Ortiz-Vélez, 630 F.3d 228 (1st Cir. 2010) (fee-shifting in civil-rights cases is the exception; caution in awarding fees to defendants)
- Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991) (pro se litigants cannot recover attorney’s fees; recognized distinction that organizations represented by counsel are not pro se)