Furno v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:19-cv-02808-SPF
| M.D. Fla. | Mar 9, 2022Background
- Case: Eric Furno v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 8:19-cv-2808-SPF (M.D. Fla., Tampa Div.).
- The district court entered judgment awarding Plaintiff’s counsel $26,364.03 in attorney’s fees.
- The judgment form states the action came before the court and a decision was rendered; the clerk entered the fee award as a final judgment.
- The docket entry includes a Civil Appeals Jurisdiction Checklist summarizing rules on appealability, interlocutory appeals, and timing for filing notices of appeal.
- The checklist explains finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, rules for multiple-claim/party judgments (Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)), and that fee awards are often treated as collateral to the merits and immediately appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality/appealability of the judgment | Furno: the clerk’s judgment awarding fees is a final, appealable order | Commissioner: appeals limited to final orders; may argue certification needed if not all claims resolved | Court entered judgment for fees; fee awards can be immediately appealable when collateral to merits per precedent |
| Whether fee awards are collateral and immediately appealable | Furno: fee award is collateral to merits and appealable without Rule 54(b) certification | Commissioner: may contend further district-court action remains | Held that awards resolving all merits except collateral matters like fees are immediately appealable (Budinich/LaChance principle) |
| Timing to file notice of appeal | Furno: must file within Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) timeframes (30 days; 60 days if U.S. is a party) | Commissioner: same statutory rules control; any motions tolling time extend deadline per Rule 4(a)(3)-(4) | Notices of appeal must comply with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)–(c); special inmate mailbox rule and limited extensions available |
| Effect of filing a notice of appeal on district-court jurisdiction | Furno: a timely notice divests the district court except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or specified motions | Commissioner: agrees district court loses jurisdiction after timely notice | Court confirms district court jurisdiction is divested after a timely notice of appeal except for limited exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1983) (defines "final decision" ending litigation on the merits)
- Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885 (11th Cir. 1984) (Rule 54(b) certification required to make partial judgments final)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (fee awards collateral to merits may be immediately appealable)
- LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 1998) (applies Budinich to attorney-fee appeals)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (limited exceptions to final-judgment rule)
- Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F.2d 371 (11th Cir. 1989) (discusses interlocutory appeal exceptions)
- Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964) (judicially created finality exceptions)
- Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2001) (timely filing of notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional)