Husain v. Springer

15-127
Husain et al. 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 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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 10th day of November, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 SARAH HUSAIN et al.,
13 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
14
15 -v.- 15-127
16
17 MARLENE SPRINGER,
18 Defendant-Appellee.
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20
21 FOR APPELLANTS: RONALD BRIAN MCGUIRE, New York,
22 New York.
23
24 FOR APPELLEE: ANDREW W. AMEND (with Barbara D.
25 Underwood and Steven C. Wu on
26 the brief) for Eric T.
27 Schneiderman, Attorney General
1
1 of the State of New York, New
2 York, New York.
3
4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
5 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gershon, J.).
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
8 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
9 AFFIRMED.
10
11 Appellee Marlene Springer, the then-president at the
12 College of Staten Island (“CSI”) invalidated a student
13 government election in 1997 because the student newspaper’s
14 endorsements of the winning slate of candidates violated the
15 parity of campaign expenditures. That same year, former
16 students who were on the student newspaper sued Springer and
17 25 others for alleged violations of the First Amendment.
18
19 In the last chapter of this protracted litigation, the
20 district judge (Gershon, J.) reduced appellants’ attorney’s
21 fees award after we concluded that appellants were entitled
22 to attorney’s fees but determined that the initial amount of
23 this award was excessive and thus a remand for the limited
24 purpose of diminishing this award was necessary. See Husain
25 v. Springer, 579 F. App’x 3, 5-6 (2d Cir. 2014). Appellants,
26 unsurprisingly unhappy with this development, now appeal the
27 district judge’s revised attorney’s fees award, contending
28 that the reductions imposed by the district judge were
29 excessive.
30
31 The district court “has wide discretion in determining
32 the amount of attorneys’ fees to award; thus, absent an
33 abuse of discretion or an error of law we will not disturb
34 the district court’s assessment of the appropriate fee
35 award.” Grant v. Martinez, 973 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 1992).
36 Here, the district court acted within the parameters of our
37 mandate in reducing appellants’ attorney’s fee award based
38 on a number of characteristics. J.A. 1383-85. In other
39 words, the district court did precisely what we directed,
40 which was “reduce the fee awarded in this case to a
41 reasonable figure, which may well be significantly lower
42 than that originally awarded by the district court.”
43 Husain, 579 F. App’x at 7.
44
45
2
1 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
2 appellants’ other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment
3 of the district court.
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
7
8
9
10
11
3