Torres-Rivera v. Espada-Cruz, No. 07-1806. This is another case dealing with how to determine attorneys fees under 42 USC 1988. The plaintiffs take this appeal because they argue that they were not awarded enough. The First sides with the plaintiffs in large respects. Because there are multiple litigants as well as some default judgments, the issues get complicated.
First, the First says that whatever the reason, a District Court needs to articulate its reason for awarding or not awarding fees on the record. Second, in multi-defendant cases, the First must determine whether fees are apportionable or awarded jointly and severally. Usually things are apportioned by time. Sounds easy? Well, in this case the District Court apportioned by “relative liability.” The plaintiffs don’t like that because one defendant mounted a vigorous defense and another one defaulted.
The First says the rule in this case is thus:
The rule that we glean from the case law runs along the following lines. Where apportionment is indicated, the choice among available options generally lies within the district court's sound discretion. ... But when the time required to litigate against one defendant is grossly disproportionate to the time required to litigate against another defendant and the two defendants are not in privity, then the time expended method of apportionment should be used.
A global reduction of 15% “global reduction” because of vagueness of time entries.
Finally, a denial of a supplemental petition for fees for litigating the fee petition is called an abuse of discretion because the District Court didn’t give its reasons.
Recent Comments