Ray Haluch Gravel Co., et al., v. Cent. Pension Fund of the IntaEUR(TM)l Union of Oper. EngaEUR(TM)rs & Participating EmpaEUR(TM)rs, et al., case No. 12-992 Petition Granted June 17, 2013

According to the petition, aEURoe[t]he question presented in this case, on which there is an acknowledged conflict among nine circuits, is whether a district courtaEUR(TM)s decision on the merits that leaves unresolved a request for contractual attorneyaEUR(TM)s fees is a aEURoefinal decisionaEUR? under 28 U.S.C. ? 1291.aEUR? The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case that could bring clarity regarding the 30-day deadline to appeal a decision that leaves a contractual request for attorneysaEUR(TM) fees unresolved. Procedurally, in the underlying case the district court issued a decision on the merits and then awarded attorneyaEUR(TM)s fees in a separate order more than a month later. The respondents then filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the latter order awarding attorneys fees but not within 30 days of the decision on the merits. The circuits are in disarray on that question and the First CircuitaEUR(TM)s ruling which held that such a decision on the merits is not final is at odds not only with other appeals courts, but also with a 1988 decision from the First Circuit itself. The First Circuit vacated a pair of lower court decisions which entitled plaintiffs to recover benefit contributions, and awarded them approximately $27,000. The second decision on attorneysaEUR(TM) fees owed under a collective bargaining agreement was issued more than a month later. The plaintiffs argued that court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal of the earlier of the two decisions because the union defendants had waited until after the fee decision to appeal thereby missing the 30-day deadline to challenge the earlier decisions. The First CircuitaEUR(TM)s held that the earlier decision on the merits was not final because the fee award was a part of the merits. According to the petitioner this decision is irreconcilable with earlier First Circuit precedent, and also contributes to a longtime circuit split whereas 9 of the 13 circuits have tackled the question of if and how a claim for contractual attorneysaEUR(TM) fees affects the finality of a decision on the merits, and the circuits have reached a variety of differing conclusions. It is expected that the CourtaEUR(TM)s decision will have an impact even outside of the ERISA landscape in all cases dealing with contractual awards of attorneysaEUR(TM) fees. Click here for the petition.