In Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers & Participating Employers,134 S. Ct. 773 (2014) (No. 12-922), plaintiffs brought claims against defendant employer under a collective bargaining agreement and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), seeking to recover unpaid contributions to certain benefit funds, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their unpaid contributions claims, but for an amount that was less than what they sought. More than month later, the court awarded plaintiffs some of their attorney’s fees and costs, but again it was less than what they had requested. After plaintiffs appealed both rulings within 30 days of the court’s attorney’s-fees order, defendant argued that the appeal with respect to the first merits decision was untimely. Plaintiffs responded that there had been no final decision until the court rendered a decision on their requested attorney’s fees, and thus their appeal was timely as to all issues in the case. The First Circuit agreed with plaintiffs, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the pendency of a ruling on an award for fees, whether based in statute or contract, does not prevent the merits judgment from becoming “final” for purposes of appeal. Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after final judgment was entered on plaintiff’s underlying contribution claims, the appeal as to those claims was untimely.