In Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a district-court decision that fully resolves the merits of the litigation, but without addressing attorney's fees under a statutory fee-shifting provision, is a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 that must be appealed within 30 days. Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, No. 12-992, to address whether the same rule applies when attorney's fees are authorized by a contractual fee provision rather than by statute. Mayer Brown represents the petitioners in this case.

In the decision below, the district court issued an initial decision on the merits of the parties' contract dispute and then, more than a month later, issued a separate order awarding attorney's fees. Respondents filed a notice of appeal within 30 days after the order granting attorney's fees, but not within 30 days of the earlier decision resolving the merits. Eschewing Budinich's "bright-line rule" (486 U.S. at 202), the First Circuit held that the notice of appeal was timely as to both decisions. The court reasoned that, unlike the statutory attorney's fees in Budinich, the contractual attorney's fees in this case "are part of the merits of" the contract claim. 695 F.3d 1, 7.

The courts of appeals have divided on whether contractual fee awards are collateral, like the statutory attorney's fees in Budinich, or are instead part of the merits that must be resolved before any appeal is taken. The Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held that contractual fee awards are always collateral. The Eleventh Circuit has held that they are never collateral. And the First, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits have held that they are sometimes collateral, depending on case-specific facts.

The Court's decision could have a significant impact on businesses because contacts containing attorney-fee provisions are commonplace in commercial transactions. This case will determine the procedures that must be followed by parties appealing a decision in a case involving a claim for contractual attorney's fees, with a failure to follow those procedures potentially resulting in a waiver of the party's appeal of the decision on the merits of the case.

Absent extensions, which are likely, amicus briefs in support of the petitioners will be due on August 8, 2013, and amicus briefs in supports of the respondents will be due on September 10, 2013. Any questions about this case should be directed to Dan Himmelfarb or Charles A. Rothfeld in our Washington office.

Edited by Archis A. Parasharami and Kevin S. Ranlett

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2013. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This . Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.