Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs

11 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Unresolved Claim For Attorney’s Fees Does Not Prevent Judgment From Becoming “Final”

    Alston & Bird LLPEmily HootkinsJanuary 31, 2014

    The facts of Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Engineers & Participating Employers, 134 S. Ct. 773 (2014)are straightforward. Petitioner Ray Haluch Gravel Co. (“Haluch”) is a landscape supply company required to pay contributions to union-affiliated benefit funds under a collective-bargaining agreement.

  2. Just File Your Notice of Appeal!

    Bryan Cave Leighton PaisnerKhaled TaraziFebruary 28, 2020

    PCPR appealed the District Court’s ruling to the First Circuit.The Court’s AnalysisThe time for appealing a final judgment begins to run when judgment is entered, even if the lower court still has before it a request for attorneys’ fees or costs incurred in litigating the case. SeeRayHaluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 571 U.S. 177, 186 (2014). Applying this “uniform rule,” the First Circuit put the Debtor’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs aside and determined that the Stay Violation Order was a final judgment for appeal purposes.

  3. Categories & Search Bankruptcy Appellate Practice: The Entry of Bankruptcy Court Orders and the 14-Day Period to Appeal

    Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLPDaniel LowenthalFebruary 6, 2020

    But U.S. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that an award of fees related to an underlying litigation is considered “collateral” to the final order and doesn’t impact the calculation of when a party in PCPR’s position must appeal. Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 571 U.S. 177 (2014); and Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988).PCPR’s appeal would also have been late if the 150-period ran from when the bankruptcy court denied EMV’s motion for reconsideration on May 30. The 150th day from May 30 was October 28.

  4. The Last Screen

    Tucker Arensberg, P.C.Judith FitzgeraldNovember 3, 2015

    As the court noted: The timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a prerequisite to the appellate court’s jurisdiction. See Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund,134 S. Ct. 773, 779 (2014); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“Bowles”); Perez v. AC Roosevelt Food Corp., 744 F.3d 39, 41 (2d Cir. 2013). As the Supreme Court observed in Bowles in 2007, “[T]ime limits for filing a notice of appeal have been treated as jurisdictional in American law for well over a century.”

  5. Retaining Jurisdiction Does Not Suspend Finality of Judgment in Federal Court

    BerlikLaw, LLCLee E. BerlikJanuary 5, 2015

    It reasoned that the court’s ability to modify or terminate an injunction post-judgment is simply part of its “inherent power” that exists in every case. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 134 S. Ct. 773, 777 (2014), the court also held that “a decision on the merits is a final decision under § 1291 even if the award or amount of attorney’s fees for the litigation remains to be determined.” This result is hard to reconcile with the definition of “finality,” but it’s now unquestionably the law in the Fourth Circuit.

  6. "Bridging the Finality Gap: Getting Appeals of the Merits and Attorneys' Fees on the Same Track"

    Nexsen Pruet, PLLCKirsten SmallOctober 29, 2014

    Familian Nw., Inc. v. RG & B Contractors, Inc., 21 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 1994). In January of this year, the Supreme Court resolved the split among the circuit courts by deciding Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, 134 S. Ct. 2205 (2014). The plaintiffs in Ray Haluch, several pension funds, filed suit for unpaid contributions required by federal law and the par- ties’ collective bargaining agreements.

  7. The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - February 2014

    Proskauer Rose LLPJustin AlexFebruary 24, 2014

    Rulings, Filings and Settlements of InterestU.S. Supreme Court: A Decision on the Merits Triggers the Time to Appeal Irrespective of a Pending Contractual or Statutory Attorneys' Fee Application By Todd Mobley The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion that an unresolved claim for attorney's fees does not prevent a decision on the merits of an ERISA suit from becoming final for purposes of the deadline to file a notice of appeal to a federal appellate court. Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Operating Eng'rs, No. 12-992, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 646. In so ruling, the Court resolved a split among the circuit courts as to whether an appeal of a decision on the merits should proceed before there has been a final ruling on a corollary application for attorneys' fees, and whether the resolution of that issue should depend on whether the claim for attorneys' fees was based on contract or statute.

  8. Does a Pending Decision on Attorneys’ Fees Render an Entered Judgment Less Than Final?

    Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLCBruce GreenbergJanuary 30, 2014

    Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, ___ U.S. ___ (2014). In New Jersey state court, if attorneys’ fee issues remain to be adjudicated, any judgment entered is considered interlocutory, not final, until the fee issue is resolved.

  9. Supreme Court Confirms That Merits Decisions Are Final and Appealable Even When Contractual Fees Remain Unresolved

    Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLPJanuary 30, 2014

    The U.S. Supreme Court has provided much-needed clarity and uniformity on the issue of whether contractual attorney’s fees are a part of a merits decision for the purposes of determining timeliness of a federal appeal. Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers, No. 12-992 (Jan. 15, 2014). The Court reaffirmed its earlier holding in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988), that an unresolved application for attorney’s fees does not prevent a judgment on the merits from being considered final for purposes of the 30-day deadline to file a notice of appeal under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

  10. U.S. Supreme Court: A Decision on the Merits Triggers the Time to Appeal Irrespective of a Pending Contractual or Statutory Attorneys’ Fee Application

    Proskauer Rose LLPJanuary 28, 2014

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion that an unresolved claim for attorney’s fees does not prevent a decision on the merits of an ERISA suit from becoming final for purposes of the deadline to file a notice of appeal to a federal appellate court. Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Operating Eng’rs, No. 12-992, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 646. In so ruling, the Court resolved a split among the circuit courts as to whether an appeal of a decision on the merits should proceed before there has been a final ruling on a corollary application for attorneys’ fees, and whether the resolution of that issue should depend on whether the claim for attorneys’ fees was based on contract or statute.