Rosello-Gonzalez v. Acevedo-Villa, Nos. 06-1448, 06-1449, 06-1450 (3/13/07). In this case issued late in the day, the First finds that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The law in the First circuit is that a party is a prevailing party “when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.” Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 292 (1st Cir. 2001). In this election case, the plaintiff “claim[s] that they received some actual relief on their claims when the district judge issued orders asserting jurisdiction over the absentee ballots and directing Defendants to perform a recount by counting all ballots but segregating and not adjudicating the disputed three-mark split ballots.” But since the First reversed, and therefore, any relief they obtained “any relief they obtained lacks judicial imprimatur.”
If you are truly detail-oriented you will keep reading.
The defendants also requested attorneys fees. Defendants in 1983 cases are only entitled to fees when “upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith." Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). The First upholds the denial by saying that the lower court considered the plaintiffs’ claims, and saw that they were based on evidence and law that was good enough. Furthermore, the defendants can’t point to any information that the District Court improperly considered (or failed to consider) when denying the claim for fees.
The defendants request for fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (sanctions for those that “multipl[y]the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.”). Even though the District Court didn’t give a full explanation, “There is no allegation, for example, of duplicative motions being filed or repeated refusals to comply with court orders.” Instead, the defendants just reiterated their argument that the plaintiffs position was frivolous.
The underlying case was Rosselló-González v. Calderón-Serra, 398 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004).
Comments