New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Are Attorneys’ Fees Includable in a Bond Issued under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7? — Circuit Split — Potential Fed.R.App.P. 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal Are Not Includable within Bond

Download PDF

Rossi v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34180 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2014):

1.  Attorneys' Fees

Circuits are split on the question of whether or not to include attorneys' fees in a bond issued under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7. See Azizian v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 499 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2007). The Second, Sixth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits all hold that it is within a district court's discretion to include projected  [*4] attorneys' fees in an appeal bond made pursuant to Rule 7. See id. at 955, 958. However, the D.C. Circuit and Third Circuit have both held that "that Rule 7 does not authorize a bond to cover estimated costs of attorneys' fees."  Hirschensohn, 1997 WL 307777, at *3.

In particular, in Hirschensohn v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., the Third Circuit held "that attorneys' fees are distinct from the 'costs' defined by Rule 39." (Id. at *2). In doing so, the Court differentiated cases, such as this one, where the rule in question contains a detailed description of "costs," from cases like Marek v. Chesny, where the rule in question contains no definition of "costs." Compare id. at *2, with Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 7, 9 (1985) (holding that "costs" under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 68 "refer[s] to all costs properly awardable under the relevant substantive statute or other authority" including attorneys' fees); but see Adsani v. Miller, 139 F.3d 67, 74 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that "Hirschensohn does not address the case where . . . an independent  [*5] federal statute explicitly authorizes attorney's fees 'as part of the costs' both at trial and upon appeal . . . ."). Although Hirschensohn is an unreported decision, its reasoning remains sound. Thus, the Court sees no reason to deviate from the Third Circuit's practice of excluding attorneys' fees from Rule 7 appeal bonds.

***

3.  Costs and Damages for Frivolous Appeal

Finally, Plaintiff argues that, "[w]here a district court believes that the recovery of sanctions and fees is possible under Rule 38, such amount should be considered in the assessment of an appeal  [*6] bond." (Pl. Br. in Supp. of Mot. 10.) Plaintiff's argument fails for two reasons.

First, following the logic of Hirschensohn, only those costs enumerated in Rule 39 may be considered by the court in issuing an appeal bond under Rule 7. See Hirschensohn, 1997 WL 307777, at *2-*3. Because prospective damages and costs for frivolous appeals are not enumerated in Rule 39, they are not includable in a Rule 7 appeal bond.

Second, Rule 38 provides that, "[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may . . . award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee." Fed. R. App. P. 38 (emphasis added). Plaintiff's argument fails because Rule 38, by its very terms, applies to courts of appeal-not district courts. Plaintiff cites no binding legal authority suggesting that a district court may step into the shoes of an appellate court to decide whether an appeal is frivolous under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. This Court therefore determines that it has no authority to include prospective costs and damages under Rule 38 in a Rule 7 appeal bond.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice