AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves American Express Federal Savings Bank, FSB (Plaintiff-Appellee) and David E. Mittle (Defendant-Appellant) in a dispute where the district court issued orders related to motions for summary judgment, to strike plaintiff’s reply in support of summary judgment, to reconsider, and for sanctions. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around a summary judgment granted in favor of American Express Bank, with subsequent orders addressing procedural aspects and motions filed by Mittle. The details of the underlying dispute between the parties are not provided in the decision.

Procedural History

• Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 6, 2013: Granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
• Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Summary Judgment, filed February 6, 2013: Denied Defendant's motion to strike.
• Order Denying Defendant’s Oral Motions to Reconsider, filed February 22, 2013: Denied Defendant's motions to reconsider.
• Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, filed February 22, 2013: Denied Defendant's motion for sanctions.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued for summary judgment in their favor, indicating that all issues of law and fact had been resolved except for attorney fees and costs. Claimed entitlement to attorney fees based on an open account and pursuant to the terms of the Business Charge Card Agreement (N/A).
• Defendant-Appellant: Opposed the summary judgment and filed motions to strike the plaintiff’s reply in support of summary judgment, to reconsider the court's orders, and for sanctions. Argued that the order granting summary judgment disposed of all issues to the fullest extent possible, except for attorney fees and costs, and considered the entry of a final judgment as a "ministerial act" (paras 3-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the order granting summary judgment was a final order for purposes of appeal.
• Whether the district court's denial of Defendant's motions was proper.
• Whether attorney fees and costs are to be considered in determining the finality of the judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and M. Monica Zamora, Judge, concurring):
  The court determined that the order granting summary judgment was not final because it anticipated further action by the district court, specifically the preparation of a form of final judgment and decisions on entitlement to attorney fees and costs. The distinction between attorney fees that are collateral to the judgment and those that are part of compensatory damages was highlighted, indicating that the district court needed to make further determinations regarding American Express's entitlement to attorney fees and costs, and whether the case was tried as an open account. The court also noted that Mittle's assertion that entry of a final judgment was merely a "ministerial act" was incorrect, given the pending decisions on attorney fees and the nature of the case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of a final order, as further action by the district court was contemplated (paras 2-6).