997 F.3d 1217
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- SEIU filed a petition to compel arbitration after Preeminent refused to hire two guards, alleging a breach of a collective-bargaining agreement.
- In May 2018 the district court granted summary judgment to the SEIU and ordered arbitration.
- Preeminent delayed arbitration for over a year (two arbitrators recused; Preeminent disputed payment and alleged bias), prompting SEIU contempt motions.
- The district court (Nov 2018–June 2019) ordered Preeminent to pay half arbitration costs, found bad faith, awarded attorneys’ fees, and entered a civil contempt order with conditional fines; a third arbitrator then completed the arbitration.
- In November 2019 the district court fixed total fees and costs at about $51,000; Preeminent timely appealed only that fee award and belatedly attempted to challenge the earlier arbitration and contempt orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of May 2018 order compelling arbitration | SEIU: Order was final and appealable; Preeminent did not timely appeal | Preeminent: Order was interlocutory and merged into later proceedings | Court: Order was final under FAA (ended litigation on merits); Preeminent failed to timely appeal → no jurisdiction |
| Appealability of June 2019 civil contempt order | SEIU: Contempt entered after final judgment and thus was final and appealable | Preeminent: Contempt was interlocutory because sanctions conditional and fees unresolved | Court: Post-judgment contempt sanctions are final even if conditional or fees pending; Preeminent failed to timely appeal → no jurisdiction |
| Use of prevailing market rates (vs. attorneys’ actual discounted rates) for fee award | SEIU: Market rates appropriate; counsel discounted rates for union | Preeminent: Using market rates was punitive and inconsistent with Goodyear; actual discounted rates should apply | Court: Use of market rates is permissible here; Goodyear does not require criminal-contempt protections for that methodology; affirmed |
| Reduction of fee award for inability to pay | SEIU: No reduction needed; evidence showed Preeminent had substantial contracts and revenue | Preeminent: Court should reduce award due to inability to pay (submitted loss figures) | Court: District court did not abuse discretion; Preeminent failed to prove inability to pay; award stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (30-day appeal deadline is jurisdictional)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (when arbitration order is a final decision under FAA)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (interlocutory vs final decision discussion)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (fee issues do not prevent §1291 finality)
- Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund, 571 U.S. 177 (2014) (Budinich rule applies regardless of fee-authorizing source)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017) (sanctions must be compensatory, not punitive)
- Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (use of prevailing market rates rather than discounted actual rates for fee awards)