Zuniga v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 20-CV-77

Appellants sued for unpaid wages and recovered wages by offers of judgment; they then timely moved and the Superior Court awarded $41,573.43 in attorneys’ fees and costs on February 12, 2019.
The February 12 order awarded fees but did not expressly name which defendants were liable; defendants did not immediately pay the award.
Appellants sought to enforce the fee award; the clerk refused a writ of attachment because the order lacked express identification of liable defendants.
With defendants’ consent, the court entered a nunc pro tunc order on May 13, 2019, clarifying that Whiting-Turner and Commercial Interiors were jointly and severally liable; defendants then paid the award in full.
Appellants sought (1) interest on the unpaid fee award for the period it remained unpaid and (2) additional fees/costs incurred to enforce the award. The trial court denied interest and held the supplemental fee motion untimely under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 54(d)(2)(B).
On appeal the court held interest should have accrued from February 12 to May 13 and remanded to calculate it; it affirmed denial of the supplemental fee request as untimely but left open recovery of fees incurred to obtain relief (e.g., interest) if a future judgment entitles appellants to them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether D.C. Code § 28-3302(c) provides for interest on an award of attorneys’ fees	Fee awards are "judgments or decrees" and therefore accrue interest under § 28-3302(c)	§ 28-3302(c) does not expressly require interest on fee awards; matrix adjustments already compensate for delay	Court: Fee awards are "judgments or decrees"; interest accrues under § 28-3302(c) (reverse denial)
When interest begins to run on a fee award clarified by a nunc pro tunc order	Interest should run from original award date (Feb. 12) because the May 13 order was nunc pro tunc	Interest should run from May 13 because that was the effective enforceable entry	Court: May 13 order was properly entered nunc pro tunc to Feb. 12; interest accrued from Feb. 12 to May 13 (reverse denial)
Whether appellants may recover additional fees/costs incurred to enforce the fee award under D.C. Code § 32-1308(b)(1)	§ 32-1308(b)(1) authorizes fees for proceedings to enforce a judgment; appellants timely sought such fees or their filing was supplemental	Motion was untimely under Rule 54(d)(2)(B) because it was filed more than 14 days after the May 13 judgment	Court: Motion for post-May 13 enforcement fees was untimely under Rule 54(d)(2)(B) and denial affirmed; but fees incurred to obtain relief not provided by May 13 (e.g., interest) remain recoverable if and when a judgment entitles them (affirm in part; without prejudice in part)

Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 487 F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1973) (post-judgment interest applies to attorney-fee awards)
Eaves v. County of Cape May, 239 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2001) (federal rule: interest on fee awards mandatory)
MidAmerica Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc., 962 F.2d 1470 (10th Cir. 1992) (attorneys’ fees treated like other money judgments for interest)
Appeal of A.H., 590 A.2d 123 (D.C. 1991) (nunc pro tunc power to correct judgment record)
District of Columbia v. Jackson, 878 A.2d 489 (D.C. 2005) (Rule 54(d)(2)(B) timeliness requirement for fee motions)
Robinson v. City of Harvey, 617 F.3d 915 (7th Cir. 2010) (strict enforcement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) deadlines)