Woodward v. Credit Service International Corporation

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Lisa Woodward and Peter Woodward,          No. 23-cv-632 (KMM/ECW)        

     Plaintiffs,                                                     

v.                                                                        

Credit Service International Corporation                                  
and Richard Muske,                                                        

     Defendants.                                                     


This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Request for Entry of Judgment.” 
Request  (Doc.  40).  Plaintiffs  have  filed  a  notice  of  appeal  from  the  Court’s  Order 
granting in part their motion for attorney’s fees, Order (Doc. 35), and the Order denying 
their request for reconsideration, Recon. Order (Doc. 38).                
No separate judgment will be entered in this case because it is not necessary to do 
so under the applicable Rules. “A party may request that judgment be set out in a separate 
document as required by Rule 58(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d) (emphasis added). Under 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), “[e]very judgment and amended judgment must be 
set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order 
disposing of a motion . . . for attorney’s fees under Rule 54.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3) 
(emphasis added). And if Rule 58(a) “does not require a separate document,” then an 
“order  is  entered  for  purposes  of”  Federal  Rule  of  Appellate  Procedure  4(a),  which 
establishes the time for filing an appeal from that order, “when the . . . order is entered in 

1 Plaintiffs’ motion for fees was brought pursuant to Rule 54. Mot. (Doc. 19). 
the civil docket[.]” Fed. R. App. P. 7(a)(7)(A)(i). An order on a request for fees is 
“‘collateral to and independent from the merits of the litigation’” and is “‘separably 
appealable as a final judgment.’” Gates v. Central States Teamsters Pension Fund, 

 (8th Cir. 1986) (Obin v. Dist. No. 9, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 

 (8th Cir. 1981)); see also California Med. Ass’n v. Shalala, 

 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]party may obtain relief from a judgment awarding attorney’s 
fees [by appealing] the fee award as it would any final judgment.”).      
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Request (Doc. 40) for entry of a judgment in a separate 

document concerning the Order on their motion for fees is denied. See Mason Tenders 
Dist. Council of Greater New York v. Phase Constr. Servs., Inc., No. 14 Civ. 06016 (ER), 

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2012) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a 
judgment in a separate document based on the language of Rules 54 and 58). 

Date: February 22, 2024          s/Katherine Menendez                     
                            Katherine Menendez                       
                            United States Magistrate Judge           

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Lisa Woodward and Peter Woodward,          No. 23-cv-632 (KMM/ECW)        

     Plaintiffs,                                                     

v.                                                                        

Credit Service International Corporation                                  
and Richard Muske,                                                        

     Defendants.                                                     


This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Request for Entry of Judgment.” 
Request  (Doc.  40).  Plaintiffs  have  filed  a  notice  of  appeal  from  the  Court’s  Order 
granting in part their motion for attorney’s fees, Order (Doc. 35), and the Order denying 
their request for reconsideration, Recon. Order (Doc. 38).                
No separate judgment will be entered in this case because it is not necessary to do 
so under the applicable Rules. “A party may request that judgment be set out in a separate 
document as required by Rule 58(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d) (emphasis added). Under 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), “[e]very judgment and amended judgment must be 
set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order 
disposing of a motion . . . for attorney’s fees under Rule 54.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3) 
(emphasis added). And if Rule 58(a) “does not require a separate document,” then an 
“order  is  entered  for  purposes  of”  Federal  Rule  of  Appellate  Procedure  4(a),  which 
establishes the time for filing an appeal from that order, “when the . . . order is entered in 

1 Plaintiffs’ motion for fees was brought pursuant to Rule 54. Mot. (Doc. 19). 
the civil docket[.]” Fed. R. App. P. 7(a)(7)(A)(i). An order on a request for fees is 
“‘collateral to and independent from the merits of the litigation’” and is “‘separably 
appealable as a final judgment.’” Gates v. Central States Teamsters Pension Fund, 

 (8th Cir. 1986) (Obin v. Dist. No. 9, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 

 (8th Cir. 1981)); see also California Med. Ass’n v. Shalala, 

 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]party may obtain relief from a judgment awarding attorney’s 
fees [by appealing] the fee award as it would any final judgment.”).      
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Request (Doc. 40) for entry of a judgment in a separate 

document concerning the Order on their motion for fees is denied. See Mason Tenders 
Dist. Council of Greater New York v. Phase Constr. Servs., Inc., No. 14 Civ. 06016 (ER), 

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2012) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a 
judgment in a separate document based on the language of Rules 54 and 58). 

Date: February 22, 2024          s/Katherine Menendez                     
                            Katherine Menendez                       
                            United States Magistrate Judge