Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01793/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01793-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denise Cross
Appellee
Dana K. Martin
Appellee
Missouri Child Care Association
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1793

___________

Missouri Child Care Association, *

doing business as Missouri Coalition *

of Children's Agencies, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellant, * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Denise Cross, Dana K. Martin, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 2004

Filed: July 28, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Missouri Child Care Association (MCCA), the prevailing party in this

civil rights case, appeals the order of the District Court1

 awarding attorney fees to

MCCA. MCCA argues that the court abused its discretion by reducing MCCA's

claim for attorney fees by sixty percent. The District Court's reason for this

downward adjustment of the lodestar amount was that MCCA, though it had

Appellate Case: 04-1793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2004 Entry ID: 1793076 
-2-

succeeded in changing the legal relationship between the parties, had achieved only

limited success. More specifically, the court reasoned that MCCA had obtained both

declaratory and injunctive relief, but that these forms of relief did not ipso facto

assure any increases in reimbursements to the foster-care providers who are MCCA's

members. Given MCCA's real but limited success, the court found that a sixty

percent reduction of the lodestar amount was reasonable.

A plaintiff's limited success is a legitimate reason to reduce a requested fee

amount. See Polacco v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 37 F.3d 366, 370 (8th Cir.

1994). Having considered all of MCCA's arguments in support of its claim that its

success was complete, not limited, and that the requested amount of attorney fees

should be awarded in full, we find those arguments unpersuasive. In the

circumstances of this case, we cannot say the District Court's fee award was an abuse

of its discretion.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1793 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2004 Entry ID: 1793076