Ninth Circuit Affirms District Judge’s Fee Award In One Dollar Award Case.
The circumstances of a case often dictate its result. This is the hallmark of jurisprudence, highlighted in the next fee case that we review.
In Mahach-Watkins v. Depee, Case No. 08-15694 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2010) (for publication), estate of a decedent won a nominal damages award of one dollar on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, although suffering summary judgment on many, many claims and another nominal one dollar award on a wrongful death claim.
The sad facts of the case involved a CHP Officer who shot and killed John Watkins during a struggle. Mr. Watkins was unemployed and had a history of schizophrenia, accompanied by drug and alcohol abuse. Mr. Watkins’ mother brought civil rights claims premised on the use of excessive police force, and also brought conspiracy claims.
The mother sought to recover almost $700,000 in attorney’s fees under the mandatory civil rights fee shifting provision (§ 1988). The district judge did award $136,687.35 in fees based on the limited success achieved in the civil rights case. Defendant appealed saying no fees were justified, and mother appealed that the fee reduction was unfair.
Result—a tie; fee award affirmed.
Defendant claimed that the nominal award meant no fees should be awarded.
Not so, under the particular facts at play, said the Ninth Circuit.
Three factors must be considered in determining whether a civil rights plaintiff succeeded in some way beyond the judgment for nominal damages: (1) the delta between the amount recovered and damages sought; (2) the significant legal issue in play; and (3) plaintiff’s accomplishment of some public goal. (Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936, 947 (9th Cir. 2005).)
The first factor weighed against a fee award, despite the fact that the availability of a compensatory award (even nominal) in favor of a deceased’s estate was an unsettled legal issue. The second factor tilted heavily in favor of a fee award, given that the state should not sanction excessive force resulting in death by a police officer. The third factor also weighed in plaintiff’s favor, with the district judge finding that the verdict might be a deterrent to the policeman’s actions in the future.
Mother argued the fee award was too small. She did not file a cross-appeal, which meant the appellate court had discretion to entertain the argument, which it did. (Lee v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 245 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001).) However, the Ninth Circuit found the fee reduction was no abuse of discretion.
Comments