Barbara Hudson v. Pittsylvania County, Virginia

Majority - Duncan

Yes, a district court's order granting summary judgment and a permanent injunction, which also retains jurisdiction for enforcement and attorney's fees, constitutes a 'final decision' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, requiring a notice of appeal within thirty days unless specifically tolled by a court order. The court's jurisdiction is limited to appeals from 'final decisions' of the district courts, which are generally those that 'ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,' as established in United States v. Modanlo and Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. A district court's continuing jurisdiction over a permanent injunction for enforcement purposes does not render the order non-final, as this power is an inherent equitable authority to modify or vacate decrees, as held in Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inn. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs clarified that a decision on the merits is a 'final decision' even if attorney's fees remain to be determined. Therefore, the district court’s March 27, 2013, orders were a final decision. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), a civil litigant must file a notice of appeal within thirty days of a final decision. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) provides that certain timely post-trial motions can toll this period, but for attorney's fees motions, this tolling only occurs 'if the district court extends the time to appeal under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 58,' as emphasized by FRCP 58(e) and Advisory Committee notes. In this case, although Hudson timely moved for attorney's fees, the district court did not enter an order under FRCP 58(e) extending the appeal time, nor did Pittsylvania take other actions to toll the period, such as moving for reconsideration under FRCP 59. Consequently, the 30-day appeal period expired on April 26, 2013. Pittsylvania's notice of appeal filed on September 18, 2013, was 145 days late. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, as established in Bowles v. Russell. Therefore, the court must dismiss Pittsylvania’s appeal of the Establishment Clause claims for lack of jurisdiction. Separately, the court reviewed the district court's award of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion, noting the district court's superior understanding of the litigation (citing Lefemine v. Wideman and McAfee v. Boczar). The court found that Pittsylvania failed to demonstrate that the district court's fee award was 'clearly wrong' or rested on an 'error of law' regarding the involvement of Feibelman, the fees awarded to Glenberg, or the refusal to make a downward adjustment to the lodestar calculation.