# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 36 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ St . Lou is Effo rt f

or AIDS; Pl an ne d P aren th oo d o f th e St . Lou is Reg io n a nd

So ut hwe st Mi ss ou ri

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

Co ns um ers Co un ci l o f Mi ss ou ri; Dr. W il li am Fo ga rty; Dr. W ay ne Leti zi a; Mi ss ou ri J ob s With Ju st ic e; Jea ne tt e Mo tt Oxfo rd ; Ch ris W or th

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s

v.
Dire ct or Ch lo ra Lin dl ey -Myers, i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Dire ct or of t he Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t o f In su ran ce, Fi na nc ia l In st it ut io ns , and Pro fes si on al Reg is tra ti on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 17 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 18 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BENTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.St

. Lou is Effo rt fo r AIDS an d Pl an ne d Pare nt ho od of th e St

. Lou is Reg io n an d

So ut hwe st Mi ss ou ri su ed to en joi n th e Heal th In su ran ce Mar ke tp la ce In no va ti on Act of 20 13 (HIMI A), §§ 37 6. 20 00 -3 76 .20 14 RSM o Su pp

. 20 13

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t to Effo rt fo r AIDS bu t de ni ed at to rn ey ’s fees un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 88 (b ). Effo rt fo r AIDS ap pe al s th is de ni al

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t re ve rs es an d re m an ds

.

I.

Effo rt fo r AIDS ch al le ng ed m an y pr ov is io ns of th e HIMIA on pr eem pt io n, du e pr oc es s, an d Fi rs t A men dm en t gr ou nd s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n bas ed on th e pr eem pt io n clai m s. St

. Loui s Effo rt fo r AIDS v. Huff , 99 6 F. Su pp

. 2d 79 8, 8 10 (W .D. Mo. 2 01 4) . On ap pe al , th is co ur t af fir m ed in pa rt. Se e 78 2 F.3 d 10 16 , 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to Effo rt fo r AI D S , fin di ng pr eem pt io n of th ree pr ov is io ns

. Se e 17 0 F. Su pp

. 3d 12 19 , 12 26 (W. D. Mo

. 20 16 ). On th es e th ree p ro vi si on s, Effort fo r AIDS cl ai m ed (1 ) pr eem

pt i o n a n d (2 ) vi ol at io n of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. In al l th e de ci si on s, th e co ur ts di d no t ad dr es s th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t c l a im (ex cep t fo r th is

co ur t’s co m

m en t o n a pro vi si on no t i nv al id at ed ). Se e 78 2 F .3d at 1 02 7- 28

.

Effo rt fo r AIDS so ug ht at to rn ey ’s fees un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 88 (b ): “ I n an y act io n or pr oc eed in g to en fo rce a pr ov is io n of se ct io n[ ]

. . . 19 83

. . . th e co ur t, in it s di sc ret io n, m ay al lo w th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty, ot he r th an th e Uni te d St at es , a reas on ab le
at to rn ey ’s fee . . . .”

Effo rt fo r AIDS’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m co ul d be fee- ge ne rat in g, th at is , su cces s on it co ul d be th e ba si s fo r at to rn ey ’s fees un de r § 19 88 (b ). Bu t pr eem pt io n cl ai m s— th e so le pr ev ai li ng le ga l th eo ry —ar e no t fee- ge ne rat in g, be cau se § 19 83 do es no t pr ov id e a r e med y f o r Su pr em acy Cl au se vi ol at io ns

. Se e Ar m st ro ng v. Ex cep ti on al Chi ld Cent er , In c. , 1 3 5 S. Ct

. 13 78 , 13 83 (2 01 5) (“ [T]he Su pr em acy

-2

-Cl au se is no t t h e so ur ce of an y fed eral rig ht s

. . . .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ).

A c c o rd in g to th e di st ric t co ur t, fees co ul d be award ed if: (1 ) th e Fi r s t Am en dm en t cl ai m s a r e s ub st an ti al , an d (2 ) th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t an d pr eem pt io n cl ai m s ari se fro m a co m

m on nu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac t. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th e fir st co nd it io n— no t di sp ut ed on ap pe al —b ut no t th e se co n d

. Acco rd in g to th e di st ric t co ur t, al th ou gh th e cl ai m s cha ll en ge d th e sa m e HIMIA pro vi si on s, th e le ga l th eo rie s in vo lv ed di ffer en t co ns id erat io ns an d di d no t ari se fro m a co m m on nu cl eu s of op erat iv e fac t.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e le ga l is su e whe th er § 19 88 (b ) au th or iz es a gr an t of att or ne y ’s fees

. Se e Phel ps -Ro pe r v. K os te r , 81 5 F .3d 39 3, 3 98 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

II.

The “ ba si c po in t of refe ren ce whe n co ns id eri ng th e award of at to rn ey ’s fees is th e be dr oc k pr in ci pl e kn own as th e Am e r i c a n Ru le : Each li ti ga nt pa y s hi s own at to rn ey ’s fees , win or lo se , un le ss a st at ut e or co nt ract pr ov id es ot he rwis e.” Ba ke r Bo tt s LLP v. ASAR CO LL C , 1 3 5 S

. Ct

. 21 58 , 21 64 (2 01 5) , qu ot in g Ha rd t v. Rel ia nce St an da rd Life In s. Co

. , 5 60 U.S. 2 42 , 2 52 –5 3 (2 01 0)

. A l it ig an t se ek in g fees un de r st at ut e m

us t sh ow “ ex pl ic it st at ut or y au th or it y .” Ba ke r Bo tt s , 13 5 S. Ct

. at 21 64 , qu ot in g Buck ha nno n Bd

. & Ca re Ho m e, In c. v. We s t Vi r g in ia Dep ’t of Hea lt h & Hu m an Res

. , 53 2 U.S. 5 98 , 60 2 (2 00 1)

.

“ Fo r pr iv at e act io ns br ou gh t un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d o t h e r s p e c ifi ed

m eas ur es de si gn ed to se cu re ci vi l rig ht s,” Co ng res s es ta bl is he d § 19 88 (b ) as “ an

ex cep ti on to th e ‘A m eri ca n R ul e’

. . . .” So le v. Wyn er , 55 1 U.S. 74 , 77 (2 00 7)

. Sect io n 19 88 (b )’s au th or it y fo r fees in § 19 83 cas es is no t “ ex ti ng ui sh ed ” if th e co ur t de ci de s th e cas e on al te rn at iv e, no n- fee- ge ne rat in g gr ou nd s. Sm it h v. Ro bi ns on , 46 8

-3

-U.S. 99 2, 10 06 (1 98 4) , ci ti ng Ma her v. Gag ne , 44 8 U.S. 12 2, 13 2 (1 98 0) (“ Co ng res s

was act in g wit hi n it s en fo rcem en t po wer in al lo win g th e award of fees in a cas e in whi ch th e p la in ti ff pr ev ai ls on a who ll y st at ut or y , no n- ci vi l-r ig ht s cl ai m pe nd en t t o
a su bs ta nt ia l co ns ti tu ti on al cla im

. . . .”).

“ The le gi sl at iv e hi st or y m ak es it cl ear th at Co ng r es s in te nd ed fees to be award ed whe re a pe nd en t co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m is in vo lv ed , ev en if th e st at ut or y cl ai m
on whi ch th e pl ai nt iff pr ev ai le d is on e fo r whi c h fees can no t be award ed un de r th e Act.” Ma her , 44 8 U.S. at 13 2 n.1 5. The Co ur t in Mah er qu ot ed a fo ot no te in a Hou se co m

m it te e rep or t:

To th e ex te nt a pl ai nt iff joi ns a cl ai m un d er on e of th e st at ut es en um erat ed in H.R. 15 46 0 wit h a cl ai m th at do es no t al lo w at to rn ey fees , th at pl ai nt if f , i f it pr ev ai ls on th e no n- fee cl ai m , is en ti tl ed to a d et erm in at io n on th e ot he r cl ai m fo r th e pu rp os e of award i n g co un se l fees

. Mor al es
v. Hai ne s , 48 6 F.2 d 8 8 0 (7 th Ci r. 19 73 ). In so m e in st a nc es , ho wev er, th e cl ai m wit h fees m ay in vo lv e a co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti o n w hi ch th e co ur ts are rel uc ta nt to
res ol ve if th e no n- co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m is di sp os i t i v e. Hag an s v. La vi ne , 41 5 U.S. 52 8, 94 S.Ct

. 13 42 , 39 L.Ed.2 d 57 7 (1 97 4)

. In su ch cas es , if th e cl ai m fo r whi ch fees m ay b e award ed m eet s th e ‘sub st an ti al it y ’ te st , se e Hag an s v. La vi ne , su

pr a ; Uni te d Min e W

or ke r s v. Gib bs , 38 3 U.S. 71 5, 86 S.Ct

. 11 30 , 16 L.Ed.2 d 21 8 (1 96 6) , at to rn ey ’s fees
m ay be al lo wed ev en th ou gh th e co ur t de cl i ne s to en te r jud gm en t fo r th e pl ai nt if f o n t ha t cl ai m , so lo ng as th e pl ai nt iff pr ev ai ls on th e no n- fee cl ai m ari si ng ou t o f a ‘com m on nu cl eu s of op erat iv e fact .’ Uni te d Min e W or ker s v. Gib bs , su

pr a , at 7 25 , 86 S.Ct ., at 1 13 8.

Id

. , qu ot in g H.R.Rep. No. 9 4– 15 58 , p. 4 , n.7 (19 76 ).

-4

-Thi s cou rt ha s di st il le d a two -p art te st : (1 ) th e po te nt ia l fee-g en erat in g clai m

m us t be su bs ta nt ia l, an d (2 ) it an d th e su cces sf ul cl ai m m

us t ari se fro m a co m

m on

nu cl eu s of op erat iv e fact

. Ro ge rs Gro up , In c. v. Ci ty of Fa yet te vi ll e, Ar ka ns as , 68 3 F.3 d 90 3, 91 1- 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), ci ti ng Ki m br ou gh v. Ar ka ns as Ac t

i v i t i e s As s’ n , 57 4 F .2d 42 3, 4 26 (8t h C ir. 1 97 8)

.

At is su e is th e se co nd co nd it io n. Effo rt fo r AIDS arg ue s th at th e cl ai m s ari se fro m a co m m on nu cl eu s of op erat iv e fact —M is so ur i’s pa ss ag e o f th e HIMI A. The S t a te co un te rs th at un de r Smi th , th is is no t en ou gh , be cau se th e cl ai m s ar e n o t

reas on ab ly relat ed

.

III.

Thi s co ur t’s de ci si on in Rog er s Gro up co nt ro ls

. The pl ai nt iff th ere ch al le ng ed

a ci ty or di na nc e on st at e la w an d du e pr oc es s gr ou nd s. Ro ge rs Grp

. , 68 3 F.3 d at 90 5. Thi s co ur t h el d t ha t t he co m m on nu cl eu s re qu ire m en t was m et :

Ro ge rs Gro up ’s cl ai m th at th e Ci ty la ck ed au th or it y un de r Ark an sa s la w to reg ul at e th e Qua rry

—Co un t I—a ris es fro m th e sa m e “ c o mm on nu cl eu s of op erat iv e fact ” as it s fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al c l a i ms

. Tha t is , al l th e cl ai m s co nc ern th e Ci ty’ s pa ss ag e of an or di na nc e reg ul at in g ro ck qu arri es , in cl ud in g R og ers Grou p’s Qu arry.

Id

. at 9 13

.

The sa m e is tr u e h e re. Effo rt fo r AIDS’s cl ai m s al l ari se fro m Mi ss ou ri’s pa ss ag e of th e HIMIA reg ul at in g Effo rt fo r AIDS. The co m m on nu cl eu s req ui rem en t is m et

.

True , Smi th req ui res th at “a c l a i m fo r whi ch fees are award ed be reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e pl ai nt iff ’s ul ti m at e su cces s.” Sm it h , 46 8 U.S. at 10 07

. In Smi t h , t he

-5

-Co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ whe re, as he re, pe ti ti on ers ha ve pr es en te d di st in ct ly di ffer en t

cl ai ms f o r di ffer en t rel ie f, ba se d on di ffer en t fact s an d le ga l th eo rie s, an d ha ve pr ev ai le d on ly on a no nf

ee cl ai m , th ey are no t en ti tl ed to a fee award si m pl y be cau se th e ot he r cl ai m was a co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m th at co ul d be as se rte d th ro ug h § 19 83 .” Id

. at 10 15

.

Smi th ’s reas on ab le rel at io ns hi p r e q ui rem en t is m et whe re un ad dr es se d an d

su cces sf ul cl ai m s se ek th e sa m e rel ie f an d ari se fro m a co m m on nu cl eu s of op erat iv e f act

. Se e Scur lo ck v. Ci ty of Lynn Ha ven , 85 8 F.2 d 15 21 , 15 28 (1 1t h Ci r. 1 9 8 8 ) (“ [C]lai m s are ‘reaso na bl y rel at ed ’ if th ey are ai m ed at ach ie vi n g t h e s a me res ul t ba se d on th e sa m e fact s or le ga l th eo rie s.”) ; Sea wa y Dri ve-i n, In c. v. To w n s h i p of C l a y , 79 1 F.2 d 44 7, 45 5 (6 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (cl ai m s are reas on ab ly rel at ed if th e y
co ns ti tu te “ a si ng le req ue st fo r rel ie f ba se d on al te rn at iv e le ga l th eo rie s” an d “ aro se

ou t of a co m

m on nu cl eu s of op erat iv e fact ”). Cf

. Wi sc on si n Ho sp . As s’ n v. Rei vi tz , 82 0 F.2 d 86 3, 86 9 (7 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (fee s are av ai la bl e un de r Smi th if “ th e pl ai nt iff ha s
a su bs ta nt ia l co ns ti tu ti on al gr ou nd , b ut pr ev ai ls on an al te rn at iv e n on co ns ti tu ti on al gr ou nd

. . . pr ov id ed th e gr ou nd s are cl os el y rel at ed fact ua ll y ” (in te rn al ci ta ti on s

om it te d) ); Ro se v. St

at e of Neb ra sk a , 74 8 F.2 d 12 58 , 12 63 -6 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (d is ti ng ui sh in g Smi th be cau se “ Ro se ’s du e-p ro ces s cl ai m was sq ua rel y ba se d on th e

sa m e se t of fact s as to whi ch he pr ev ai le d” ). But cf

. Gio va nni Ca ra nd

ol a, Ltd

. v. Ci ty of Gre ens boro , 25 8 Fed

. App x. 51 2, 51 7- 18 (4 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (cl ai m s no t

reas on ab ly rel at ed whe re th e “ le ga l is su es were n ot ti gh tl y in te rtwi ne d,” as de m on st rat ed by th e pl ai nt iff ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t so le ly on th e no n- feege ne rat in g c la im ).

In th is cas e, as in Rog er

s Gro up , th e pl ai nt iff

s so ug h t th e sa m e rel ie f un de r

a l t e r n a ti ve le ga l th eo rie s. The le ga l th eo rie s ari se fro m a co m m on nu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac t. The cla im s ar e th us reas on ab ly relat ed un de r Smi th

.

* * * * * * *

-6

-Th e ju dg m en t is rev ers ed , an d th e cas e rem an de d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt

wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-