Chee v. Board of Education of San Juan School District ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 8 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
HERMAN CHEE, SR.; JULIE CHEE,
Taylor Chee, Herman Chee, Jr., and
Araidena Chee, by and through their
parents and general guardian, Herman
Chee, Sr., and Julie Chee,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and
ERIC P. SWENSON; THERESE E.
YANAN; DONALD J. WINDER;
WINDER & HASLAM, P.C.,
Appellants,
v. No. 00-4004
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE (D.C. No. 94-CV-386)
SAN JUAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; (D. Utah)
UTAH STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Before BRISCOE, PORFILIO, Circuit Judges, and MARTEN , District Judge **
.
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to reopen and
modify the judgment of voluntary dismissal in order to ensure the record in Chee
reflected the terms of the settlement agreement, and the denial of their motion for
reconsideration of their application for attorney fees. We dismiss the appeal as
moot and remand with directions to vacate.
In 1974, a class action was brought against the San Juan County School
District, alleging that the District denied equal educational opportunities to
Native Americans. See Sinajini v. Bd. of Ed. of San Juan County Sch. Dist. , 47
F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1318 (D. Utah 1999). The present case was filed by various
members of the class to pursue separate claims regarding special education
against the District. Sinajini was resolved by consent decree in 1997. The
consent decree included the Chee plaintiffs and provided they would voluntarily
dismiss their claims. Sinajini v. Bd. of Ed. of San Juan County Sch. Dist. , 964 F.
Supp. 319, 321 (D. Utah 1997). The district court dismissed the Chee action
without prejudice, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
Counsel in the Chee action, who were also counsel in the Sinajini action,
The Honorable J. Thomas Marten, United States District Judge, District
**
of Kansas, sitting by designation.
2
requested attorney fees for their work in Chee as part of the overall request for
attorney fees in Sinajini . The court denied the request, concluding fees should be
requested in the court that decided Chee . Counsel then requested attorney fees
from the Chee court. The court denied the request because the Chee plaintiffs
were not prevailing parties, having voluntarily dismissed their claims. Counsel
requested that the court reopen the dismissal and include an explanation of the
Sinajini consent decree to make clear that the Chee plaintiffs were prevailing
parties. The district court denied the motion and the plaintiffs filed this appeal.
This court filed its decision in Sinajini on November 30, 2000, concluding
the Sinajini court’s decision not to include the Chee attorney fees was
“unreasonable.” Sinajini v. Bd., of Ed. of San Juan County Sch. Dist. , 233 F.3d
1236, 1240 (10th Cir. 2000). This court stated that “[t]he consent decree that the
court entered judgment on . . . provided for uniform resolution ‘concerning costs
and attorney[] fees in connection with the Chee and Sinajini litigation and the
pending United States matters.’” Id. The matter was remanded to the district
court to recalculate attorney fees and the court was ordered “to make a uniform
resolution on the question of attorney’s fees and costs.” Id.Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary disposition in this appeal . The
District has filed an objection to the motion, and plaintiffs have filed a reply to
the objection.
3
An appellate court has, of necessity, the discretion to dismiss an appeal
when a particular controversy has expired. Battle v. Anderson , 708 F.2d 1523,
1527 (10th Cir. 1983). A case is moot when the relief sought has already been
obtained. See S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith , 110 F.3d 724, 727 (10th
Cir. 1997).
On appeal, plaintiffs ask this court to instruct the district court to
determine appropriate attorney fees for work performed in Chee . As this court
has already ordered a district court to determine the appropriate attorney fees in
Chee , there is nothing more to be done. The fact that plaintiffs have filed a
motion for summary disposition demonstrates they have received their requested
relief.
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. We DISMISS
this appeal as moot. This case is REMANDED to the district court with
directions to vacate the underlying judgment.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
4