103, 106 (1st Cir. 1991). While this Circuit has not explicitly addressed the issue of whether the motion for attorneys’ fees time limit is tolled pending the resolution post-trial motions, other circuits toll the motion for attorneys’ fees because post-trial motions “operate to suspend the finality of the district court’s judgment.” Bailey v. Riverside, 414 F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th Cir.2005). See also Weyant, 198 F.3d at 315 (“And because the finality of judgment is negated by the timely filing of a motion under Rule 50(b), 52(b), or 59, we conclude that a Rule 54(d)(2)(B) motion is timely if filed no later than 14 days after the resolution of such a Rule 50(b), 52(b), or 59 motion.”); Members First Fed. Credit Union v. Members First Credit Union of Fla., 244 F.3d 806, 807 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). However, while the general rule is that
holding that under the mailbox rule the date that a motion is placed into the hands of prison officials for filing is the date that the motion is considered filed holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient holding that because the finality of judgment is effectively postponed by the timely filing of a motion under rule 59 the deadline for filing a motion for attorneys fees is tolled until the postjudgment motion is resolved