Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01441/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01441-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1441

___________

Advantage Media, L.L.C., *

*

Plaintiff – Appellant, *

*

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce *

of Minnesota, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Plaintiff, * District of Minnesota.

v. *

*

City of Hopkins, Minnesota, *

* 

Defendant – Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2007

Filed: January 8, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Advantage Media (Advantage) submitted permit applications for the

construction of four large billboards to the city of Hopkins, Minnesota ("the city").

The city declined to process the applications, and Advantage brought an action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that the city's sign code was unconstitutional

under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the city violated its constitutional

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

rights by denying the applications. The district court1 granted Advantage's motion for

a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the sign code, but the trial jury

awarded no damages to Advantage and the district court denied its motion for attorney

fees for procuring the preliminary injunction. Advantage now appeals the district

court's determination that it was not a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We

affirm.

I.

Advantage is a Minnesota company that develops and operates advertising signs

for commercial and noncommercial purposes. Hopkins is a suburban community of

more than 17,000 residents located approximately thirteen miles from Minneapolis.

On November 23, 2004 Advantage submitted applications to the city to erect four 672

square foot billboards containing trivision technology. A trivision billboard consists

of four or six inch vertical slats which rotate on a timer to display only one message

at a time; each side of a billboard is capable of displaying three messages for a total

of six messages per billboard.

Hopkins regulates the signs built in the city through its sign ordinance. The

authorized city official refused to accept Advantage's applications for processing

despite its repeated requests. Advantage asked for a written explanation, but the

official refused. In spite of the city's refusal, Advantage left the applications with the

official for processing. On December 4, 2004 the city returned the unprocessed

applications by mail with a note stating only that the city was returning the

applications. Advantage filed suit against the city on December 8, 2004 in the District

of Minnesota, alleging that its sign ordinance violated various constitutional

provisions including the First Amendment. The complaint included allegations that

the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Advantage and that

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022
2

The district court also dismissed a second plaintiff, Hispanic Chamber of

Commerce of Minnesota, for lack of standing. See Advantage II, 408 F. Supp. 2d at

785–88.

-3-

the ordinance impermissibly favored commercial speech over noncommercial speech.

On January 21, 2005 the city sent Advantage a letter stating it rejected the applications

because the proposed signs violated the ordinance provisions regulating the size of

signs. The largest signs permitted anywhere in the city under the sign ordinance were

250 square feet.

On July 5, 2005 Advantage filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin

enforcement of the ordinance. The district court issued a preliminary injunction on

July 29, 2005. Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Hopkins, 379 F. Supp. 2d 1030,

1048 (D. Minn. 2005) (Advantage I). It determined that the constitutionally suspect

ordinance provisions were so pervasive that they could not be severed; the district

court therefore enjoined enforcement of the entire ordinance. Id. at 1047–48. In

response to the injunction the city enacted an emergency interim sign ordinance on

August 3, 2005 and enacted a new permanent sign ordinance on August 16, 2005.

The new sign ordinance cured the constitutional infirmities that formed the basis of

Advantage's lawsuit. 

On August 8, 2005 Advantage filed a motion for partial summary judgment,

and the city filed its summary judgment motion on August 19, 2005. The district

court denied Advantage's motion and granted in part and denied in part the city's

motion. Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Hopkins, 408 F. Supp. 2d 780 (D. Minn.

2006) (Advantage II).2

 As to Advantage's request for fees, the district court held that

Advantage was not a prevailing party at that stage because the injunction "was

preliminary in nature and was not a decision that granted actual relief on the merits."

Id. at 796. The district court also denied the city's motion to dismiss Advantage's

claims for damages and fees and set the case for trial. Id. at 796–97. 

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022
-4-

In September 2006 a two day jury trial was held on whether the city

unconstitutionally refused Advantage's applications based on their content and

whether Advantage was entitled to damages. The jury determined that the city had

denied Advantage's applications on a content neutral basis and therefore Advantage

was not entitled even to nominal damages. 

On October 30, 2006 Advantage filed a limited motion for attorney fees and

costs related to procuring the preliminary injunction. The city filed its own motion

for attorney fees. The district court denied Advantage's motion on the grounds that

it was not a prevailing party for the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Advantage Media,

L.L.C. v. City of Hopkins, 2007 WL 270426 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2007) (Advantage

III). The court found that Advantage had not obtained a "judicially sanctioned

material alteration to the parties' legal relationship in a manner that benefitted

Advantage" as required to attain prevailing party status, and Advantage therefore did

not satisfy § 1988's requirements to receive attorney fees. Id. *2–3, citing Advantage

Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie, 456 F.3d 793, 801–02 (8th Cir. 2006) ("[§ 1988

attorney fees] can be awarded only to a 'prevailing party' who receives 'actual relief

on the merits of his claim'; Advantage could never be such a party, for even in victory

it would be 'no closer' to erecting its billboards or obtaining damages than when

litigation began.") (internal citations omitted). The court also denied the city's motion

for fees. Advantage now appeals the district court's determination that it was not a

prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for the purpose of obtaining attorney fees

related to obtaining the preliminary injunction.

II.

We review de novo both "the determination of whether a litigant is a prevailing

party," Salitros v. Chrysler Corp., 306 F.3d 562, 576 (8th Cir. 2002), and "the legal

issues related to the award of attorney fees," Thompson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 472

F.3d 515, 516 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022
-5-

Advantage argues that the district court erroneously concluded that the

preliminary injunction did not bring about a material change in the parties' legal

relationship and that it qualifies as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. It also

contends that under Supreme Court precedent its success in obtaining a preliminary

injunction qualifies Advantage as a prevailing party eligible for an award of attorney

fees. The city argues that Advantage is not a prevailing party because it did not show

that the city unconstitutionally rejected its sign applications and because it did not

obtain an "enforceable judgment on the merits" or a "court-ordered consent decree."

The city also asserts that the fact that Advantage obtained a preliminary injunction

which compelled the city to cure the ordinance's constitutional defects cannot qualify

Advantage as a prevailing party because the Supreme Court has rejected the catalyst

theory in the fee shifting context. 

Parties to a lawsuit generally must bear their own costs, see Buckhannon Bd.

& Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598,

602 (2001), but Congress has provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) that "[i]n any action

or proceeding to enforce a provision of [various civil rights statutes including 42

U.S.C. § 1983] the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a

reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs . . . ." Accordingly, a "plaintiff must be

a 'prevailing party' to recover an attorney's fee under § 1988." Hensley v. Eckerhart,

461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). 

The test for prevailing party explained by Supreme Court is that "a plaintiff

'prevails' 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." Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111–12 (1992); see

Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792–93

(1989) ("The touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration

of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote

in the fee statute."). The Supreme Court refined this standard in Buckhannon when

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022
-6-

it rejected the "catalyst" theory, which had been endorsed by all but one of the circuit

courts and which permitted a plaintiff to recover fees if its lawsuit achieved the

desired result through a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct. 532 U.S. at 602,

605. The Court held instead that a party must obtain a judicially sanctioned material

alteration of the legal relationship between the parties to the lawsuit to achieve

prevailing party status. Id. at 604–05. Surveying its past cases the Court determined

that enforceable judgments on the merits and consent decrees create the requisite

material alteration in the parties' legal relationship to achieve prevailing party status.

See id. at 603–04. Although the statute at issue in Buckhannon was a provision of the

Fair Housing Act, the Court's analysis applies generally to fee shifting statutes

incorporating the "prevailing party" language. See id. at 603; Cody v. Hillard, 304

F.3d 767, 773 n.3 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that the "prevailing party" analysis in

Buckhannon applies generally to fee shifting statutes). 

We have recognized that a preliminary injunction can in some instances carry

the judicial imprimatur required by Buckhannon to convey prevailing party status.

See Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Jackson, 433 F.3d 1083, 1086 (8th Cir. 2006)

("[S]ome preliminary injunctions are sufficiently akin to final relief on the merits to

confer prevailing party status."); see, e.g., Dupuy v. Samuels, 423 F.3d 714, 723 & n.4

(7th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that preliminary injunctions can meet Buckhannon's

judicial imprimatur requirement); Watson v. County of Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092,

1095–96 (9th Cir. 2002) (same). In Northern Cheyenne the plaintiff tribes sought and

obtained a preliminary injunction to halt the construction of a shooting range in a

mountain formation that contained spiritual significance for them. Because the

preliminary injunction had merely maintained the status quo, it did not effect a

material alteration in the parties' legal relationship and the plaintiffs therefore were not

prevailing parties under § 1988. Id. at 1087. The issue before us is similarly whether

the judicially sanctioned preliminary injunction in this case effected a material

alteration in the parties' legal relationship. We review this issue de novo. Christina

A. v. Bloomberg, 315 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir. 2003).

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022
-7-

Advantage filed suit to erect its signs in Hopkins, to obtain damages for

violation of its constitutional right to free speech, and to enjoin the city from enforcing

a purportedly unconstitutional ordinance. Advantage obtained no relief in respect to

its first goal. After the Hopkins sign ordinance was enjoined in Advantage I,

Advantage moved the district court for an order compelling the city to permit it to

erect its signs. The district court determined that Advantage was subject to the

ordinance's valid time, place, and manner restrictions. See Advantage II, 408 F. Supp.

2d at 791–92. Because the largest signs permitted under either version of the

ordinance were 250 square feet, the district court refused to compel the city to issue

Advantage permits to construct the 672 square feet signs it wanted. Id. at 792. The

signs Advantage sought to erect have never been built, and it is no closer to erecting

its billboards than it was when the litigation began despite the preliminary injunction.

See Granite State Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Florida, 348 F.3d

1278, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2003) (determining that the sign company was not a

prevailing party because it failed to obtain permission to erect its signs).

Advantage claimed that the unconstitutional enforcement of the ordinance

caused it monetary damage because it could not advertise on the proposed signs. At

the trial on the issue of damages, two questions were put to the jury. The first asked

whether the city had denied or refused Advantage's sign application based on the

content of the billboards rather than their size, and the second asked whether

Advantage should receive nominal damages if the city's denial of the sign permits was

not a "direct cause of substantial injuries." The jury found that the city had turned

down Advantage's billboard applications because of size provisions rather than

because of any content or message to be displayed and that Advantage should

therefore receive no damages. The jury's final resolution of the issues reflects that, as

to Advantage, the unconstitutional provisions of the Hopkins's sign code had no

impact. 

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022
-8-

Although Advantage's lawsuit resulted in alteration of several potentially

unconstitutional provisions of the Hopkins sign ordinance, the Supreme Court has

rejected the "catalyst" theory of fee recovery as a means of attaining prevailing party

status. See Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 604–05. We have previously stated that "a

judicial pronouncement that the defendant has violated the Constitution, without more,

does not make a plaintiff a prevailing party." Peter v. Jax, 187 F.3d 829, 837 (8th Cir.

1999) (internal quotations omitted). Advantage has not shown that the ordinance was

unconstitutional as applied to it, and the issuance of the preliminary injunction thus

had no impact on the relationship between Advantage and the city. See Farrar, 506

U.S. at 113–14 (something more than a technical victory is required to confer

prevailing party status). Because the constitutionally suspect provisions of the sign

ordinance were never applied to Advantage, the preliminary injunction effected no

material alteration in the parties' legal relationship.

Because Advantage failed to obtain permission to erect its signs, to show that

its free speech rights had been violated, or to prove that the preliminary injunction

effected a material alteration in the parties' legal relationship, we conclude that it

received no relief that materially altered the legal relationship between it and the city.

Advantage is therefore not a prevailing party under § 1988, and an award of attorney

fees pursuant to that section would be inappropriate.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Sole v. Wyner supports this result. 127

S. Ct. 2188 (2007). In Sole, Wyner wanted to create a large peace sign featuring nude

people in a Florida state park and sued to enjoin enforcement of a state regulation

requiring park visitors to be dressed at least in bathing suits. Id. at 2192–93. The

respondent sought attorney fees for obtaining a preliminary injunction which was later

dissolved by the district court. Id. at 2193–94. According to the Court, "[p]revailing

party status, we hold, does not attend achievement of a preliminary injunction that is

reversed, dissolved, or otherwise undone by the final decision in the same case." Id.

at 2195. A plaintiff who "secures a preliminary injunction, then loses on the merits

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022
-9-

as the case plays out and judgment is entered against her has won a battle but lost the

war." Id. at 2196 (citing Watson, 200 F.3d at 1096). 

Although the final judgment on the merits in Sole resulted from the denial of

a permanent injunction and here it resulted from an adverse jury verdict, that

distinction is irrelevant. As the Court stated "[o]f controlling importance to our

decision, the eventual ruling on the merits for defendants, after both sides considered

the case fit for final adjudication, superseded the preliminary ruling." Id. at 2195–96.

In both this case and Sole, the final judgment reversed the effect of the preliminary

injunction as to the plaintiff. The district court in Sole refused to issue a permanent

injunction because it determined that the regulation was not unconstitutional as

applied to respondent Wyner, and in this case the jury found that the sign ordinance

was not unconstitutionally applied to Advantage. See id. at 2193. Because the final

judgment resulted in a finding of no constitutional violation as to Advantage, it would

be wrong to find Advantage a prevailing party. See id. at 2192 ("A plaintiff who

achieves a transient victory at the threshold of an action can gain no award under that

fee-shifting provision if, at the end of the litigation, her initial success is undone and

she leaves the courthouse emptyhanded.").

Because the issuance of the preliminary injunction did not materially alter the

legal relationship between the parties, Advantage is not a prevailing party under §

1988(b). We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 

_______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1441 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/08/2008 Entry ID: 3389022