Husain v. Springer , 579 F. App'x 3 ( 2014 )

13-1408 (L)
Husain v. Springer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE
EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION
“SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th
3 day of August, two thousand fourteen.
4
5 Present:
6 DENNIS JACOBS,
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 __________________________________________
11
12 SARAH HUSAIN, NEIL SCHULDINER, WILLIAM
13 WHARTON, DEVON BLINTH, COLLEEN MCGRAHAM,
14 JEFF MCGRAHAM, KATHLEEN MCHUGH, MARC J.
15 PESEAU,
16
17 Plaintiffs-Appellants–
18 Cross-Appellees,
19
20 v. 13-1408-cv (Lead);
21 13-1686-cv (XAP)
22
23 MARLENE SPRINGER,
24
25 Defendant-Appellee–
26 Cross-Appellant.
27 __________________________________________
28
1
1 RONALD BRIAN MCGUIRE, New York, NY, for
2 Plaintiffs-Appellants–Cross-Appellees.
3
4 WON S. SHIN (Barbara D. Underwood, Steven C. Wu,
5 on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney
6 General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for
7 Defendant-Appellee–Cross-Appellant.
8
9 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
10 York (Gershon, J.).
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
12 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is VACATED and REMANDED for further
13 proceedings.
14 Appellants, eight former students at the College of Staten Island (“CSI”), filed suit against
15 Appellee Marlene Springer (“Appellee”), the then-President of CSI, as well as twenty-five other
16 defendants in response to Appellee’s decision to void a student government election following a
17 school newspaper’s endorsement of a slate of candidates running in that election, which Appellee
18 alleged had upset the parity of campaign expenditures. After years of litigation, including numerous
19 motions, extensive briefing, multiple appeals, and a petition seeking certiorari in the United States
20 Supreme Court, Appellants secured $9 in nominal damages from Appellee, who was the sole
21 remaining defendant. As the prevailing party, Appellants sought fees and costs totaling
22 $832,409.32, which the district court reduced to $233,239.20. Appellants challenge that reduction,
23 and Appellee challenges the district court’s decision to award any fees at all. For the reasons stated
24 below, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Appellants were
25 entitled to some fees, but vacate the judgment and remand for a reduction of the fee award consistent
26 with this order. The award of any fees, of course, remains subject to the district court’s discretion.
2
1 Section 1988 of Title 42 provides that, in any action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
2 “the [district] court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee
3 as part of the costs.” To be a “prevailing party,” a party must obtain a “material alteration of the
4 legal relationship of the parties,” including judgment on the merits, which then “permit[s] an award
5 of attorney’s fees.” Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,
6 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001). However, while prevailing parties are eligible for fees under § 1988, they
7 are not invariably entitled to them. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 115 (1992). This is because
8 it is not the technical fact of prevailing party status, but the “degree of success obtained” that
9 determines a party’s entitlement to a fee award and, relatedly, the reasonableness of the amount of
10 that award. Id. at 114 (internal quotation marks omitted). Citing this principle, the Supreme Court
11 in Farrar v. Hobby held that the award of nominal damages in a civil rights action for damages
12 would often support the denial of a fee award, given that nominal damages in such a case would
13 indicate “the plaintiff’s failure to prove actual, compensable injury.” Id. at 115. This Court has read
14 Farrar to call for the denial of attorneys’ fees “‘where recovery of private damages is the purpose
15 of civil rights litigation,’” such that an award of nominal damages demonstrates a lack of measurable
16 success. LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748, 758 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Farrar, 506 U.S.
17 at 114) (emphasis in LeBlanc-Sternberg) (alterations omitted); see Pino v. Locascio, 101 F.3d 235,
18 238 (2d Cir. 1996) (denying fees where plaintiff sought $21 million in damages but received only
19 $1). By contrast, “where both monetary and equitable relief have been pursued,” the award of
20 “significant” injunctive relief may provide a measurable basis of success supporting the award of
21 attorneys’ fees. LeBlanc-Sternberg, 143 F.3d at 758; see id. at 759 (vacating district court’s denial
22 of fees where plaintiff sought and received injunctive relief, despite seeking and failing to receive
23 compensatory and punitive damages).
3
1 Here, Appellants were uncontestedly the prevailing parties due to the entry of a nominal
2 damages award in their favor. Appellee contends, however, that the district court abused its
3 discretion in awarding fees to Appellants because they received only nominal damages. We
4 disagree. As an initial matter, Appellants sought compensatory damages in only a nominal amount;
5 their receipt of only nominal damages, therefore, does not suggest a lack of success or failure to
6 prove injury. To the contrary, this Court found that Appellee’s conduct chilled Appellants’ speech.
7 Husain v. Springer, 494 F.3d 108, 128 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, Appellants achieved a primary
8 goal of their suit: early in the litigation, Appellee agreed to repeal the offending student election
9 rules that provided the basis for her decision to void the election. While Appellee’s reversal was
10 voluntary, that factor alone does not distinguish this case from LeBlanc-Sternberg. While the
11 “prevailing party” inquiry is a technical one, our inquiry into the entitlement to fees looks to the
12 “practical effect” of the litigation. Carroll v. Blinken, 105 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Farrar,
13 506 U.S. at 112). The “practical effect” of Appellee’s reversal was more than nominal – it was an
14 outcome Appellants sought – and provides support for some fee award. Moreover, the reversal
15 would not likely have occurred but for this litigation, given that Appellee repealed the rules only
16 after a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation advising the district court to enjoin
17 Appellee’s conduct. That the district court dismissed Appellants’ request for injunctive relief as
18 moot following Appellee’s reversal does not necessarily nullify Appellants’ entitlement to fees. As
19 such, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Appellants are entitled
20 to at least some fees under Farrar and its progeny.
21 Nevertheless, while the practical outcome of Appellants’ litigation may support their
22 entitlement to some fees, it does not support the amount of fees awarded, which we conclude was
23 excessive. As an initial matter, the handling of Appellants’ case following Appellee’s voluntary
4
1 policy reversal met with a significant lack of success, as judged by the gap between the relief
2 requested in Appellants’ complaint and the relief they actually obtained.1 See Barfield v. N.Y.C.
3 Health & Hosps. Co., 537 F.3d 132, 152 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Both the quantity and quality of relief
4 obtained, as compared to what the plaintiff sought to achieve as evidenced in [the] complaint, are
5 key factors in determining the degree of success achieved.” (citing Carroll, 105 F.3d at 81) (internal
6 quotation marks omitted)). Appellants failed to receive a single dollar of the $20,000 per plaintiff
7 that they sought in punitive damages from the CSI and CUNY defendants.2 Moreover, Appellants
8 lost or abandoned every claim against twenty-five of the twenty-six defendants originally sued in
9 this case, ultimately securing a judgment only on a single count and only against Appellee.
10 Appellants failed on their claims against the student government defendants, as well as on their
11 claims concerning the Fall 1997 election and Open Meetings Law, all of which were wholly
12 separable from Appellants’ sole successful claim. Finally, the claims against many of the CSI and
13 CUNY defendants turned on these defendants’ supervisory authority, a legal issue unrelated to
14 Appellants’ claim against Appellee.
15 In addition, Appellants’ attorney’s claim of 2,741.4 hours of attorney time was extravagant.
16 First, as noted by this Court, Appellants’ litigation established no new principle of law. Husain, 494
17 F.3d at 131. To the contrary, their litigation concerned a “straightforward” application of existing
18 law, calling into question their attorney’s enormous expenditure of time. See DiFilippo v. Morizio,
1
Notably, Appellee’s voluntary policy reversal occurred in March 2000 – over nine years prior to
the entry of judgment in this case.
2
The declaration of Appellants’ counsel in support of the fee motion avers that these damages were
asserted only to preserve standing “in case the claims for injunctive relief became moot” (as
occurred) so that the lawsuit could still set “legal precedents.” We are skeptical as to whether much
if any fee award is merited for the work of eliciting an opinion to bless a result already achieved.
5
1 759 F.2d 231, 235-36 (2d Cir. 1985) (vacating fee award and remanding for reduction where hours
2 claimed were “facially excessive” in comparison to “the straightforward and non-novel nature of
3 the [plaintiff’s] case”). Further, Appellants’ attorney submitted a claim for 318.3 hours expended
4 on the fee application alone, which he purportedly reduced from over 400 hours, an amount of time
5 that strains credulity. See DeFilippo, 759 F.2d at 236 (finding, albeit in more brief action, that “42
6 hours . . . spent on the fee motion . . . [was] utterly excessive”). The attorney also sought fees for
7 hours spent on motions he did not file and for repeatedly reviewing opinions and filings; he sought
8 numerous adjournments; and made filings that were “lengthy and not always on point.” Husain v.
9 Springer, No. 97 Civ. 2982 (NG) (CLP), 2013 WL 1122718, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013). The
10 attorney’s time entries also lacked sufficient detail to permit a reasoned review, and the 772.7 hours
11 of claimed paralegal time included time for noncompensable menial tasks, further supporting a steep
12 reduction.
13 Of course, “[t]here is no precise rule or formula for making [fee] determinations,” Hensley
14 v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983), and we usually give “wide latitude to district courts to
15 assess the propriety of attorneys’ fees and costs requests,” CARCO Grp. v. Maconachy, 718 F.3d
16 72, 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Nevertheless, while “[d]etermining a ‘reasonable attorney’s fee’
17 is a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge, . . . [that] discretion is not
18 unlimited.” Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542, 558 (2010). We acknowledge the district court’s
19 careful analysis of the fees due in this action. However, in light of the foregoing discussion, and in
20 light of the factors not discussed in the district court’s opinion – including the failure of the Fall
21 1997 election and Open Meetings Law claims, as well as the separability of the claims against many
22 of the CSI and CUNY defendants – we conclude that the $216,528.00 in fees awarded “cannot be
23 located within the range of permissible decisions.” See McDaniel v. Cnty. of Schenectady, 595 F.3d
6
 1 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). While Appellants’ attorney’s exorbitant
2 request for $832,409.67 in fees may have distorted the district court’s analysis, the fact that all of
3 Appellants’ claims failed against twenty-five of twenty-six defendants, that seven of their eight
4 claims failed against the sole remaining defendant, and that they failed to obtain nearly all of their
5 requested relief compels us to conclude that the district court’s imposed reductions for lack of
6 success and excessive billing were inadequate to reduce the fee awarded in this case to a reasonable
7 figure, which may well be significantly lower than that originally awarded by the district court.
8 For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND for a recalculation
9 of the fee award consistent with this order. Any appeal following this remand shall return to this
10 panel.
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
7