2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-12-2005 

# B e am v . D owney P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3424

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Be am v . D owney " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 429. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/429NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_________________ N o. 04- 3424

_________________ B E V E R L Y B E A M,

A ppel l ant v. S CO T T DOWNE Y; RO GE R MORR I S ON; D A V ID L . G R A Y B IL L ; M IC H A E L S W E G E R , R e sp o n d e n ts

________________ ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S DI S T RI CT CO UR T F OR T HE

M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ( D . C . N o. 01: C V - 01- 00083) D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le Jam es F . M cC lure, Jr.

________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember30, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and

RE S T ANI * , J udge ( O pi ni on Fi l ed : O ct ober12, 2005)

________________ OP I NI ON

________________

________________________ *H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso d ism iss e d th e se c o n d su it an d sa n c tio n e d B e a m u n d e r R u le 1 1 1 . O n ap p ea l, w e a ff

irm ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal and san cti o n s. B ea m v . B au er, 88 F . A pp ’x 523 , 52 5 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). A dd i t i on al l y , w e grant ed d am ages t o ap pell ees, pur s uantt o F ED . R. A PP . P . 3 8 , to c o m p e n s a te f o r t h e ird e f

e n s e o f a v a lid ju d g m e n t. B e a m v . B a u e r, 3 8 3 F .3 d 1 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 2 R E ST A N I , J udge. B e v e rlyB e a m (“ B e a m ” ) a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s to th e a p p e llee s p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 8 . W e a f f irm th e a w a rd o f

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s to ap p ell ee s an d g ran t app ell ee ’s m o ti o n fo r da m ag es u n d er F ED . R. A PP . P . 3 8 . I . Backg r ound B e a m h a s b ro u g h t tw o law su its b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt a n d tw o p rio r a p p e a ls befor e thi s C our t . B oth l aw s ui t s i ncl uded a c l ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1983 among ot her fede r al and s t at e cl ai m s . I n t he fi r s tl aw s ui t , w hi ch gi ves r i s e t o thi s appea l , J udge J ames F. M cC l ur e, J r . , of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia, d ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief c o u ld be gr ant ed. B eam appeal ed thi s deci s i on and, w hi l e the appe al w as pendi ng, s he fi l ed a
n e a rl yid e n tic a l s e c o n d s u it in D is tr ic t C o u rt . W e a f f ir m e d th e d is m is s a l o f

th e f ir s t s u it, 1 B e a m v . D o w n e y , 5 4 F . A p p ’x 1 1 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ), an d th e D istric t C o u rt su b se q u e n tly im p o s e d a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s u p o n B e a m p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 8 . B eam now appea l s the aw ar d of att orney ’ s fee s . She cont ends thatthi s w as im p rop er b ec au se: 1 ) th e c o m p lai n t w as n o t fri v o lou s o r gro u n d less; 2) th e a p p ell ee s w ere notthe pr evai l i ng part i es ; and 3) J udge M cC l ur e ca us ed the i m pos i t i on of att orney ’ s fee sI n her§ 1983 cl ai m , B eam fai l ed t o al l ege s t at e ac t i on. B eam al s o di d nots t at e a 2 pr opertyr i ghtt o s uppor ta due pr oces s vi ol at i on nordi d s he make a pr i m a fa ci e equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m . She offe r ed no s uppor tforan ant i trus tvi ol at i on, no under l y i ng t or tfor 3 agai ns therbyencour agi ng di s coveryw hi l e a mot i on t o di s m i s s w as pendi ng. A ppel l ees h av e so u g h t r eli ef

u n d er F ED . R. A PP . P. 38.

I I . D i s cus s i on A . A w ard of

A t t orney’s F ees U nder 42 U . S. C . § 1988 In a § 1 9 8 3 c laim , the d istric t co u rt h a s th e d isc re tio n to g ra n t “th e p re v a ili n g p a rty

. . . a r eas onabl e att orney ’ s fee as partof the cos t s . ” 42 U . S. C . § 1988. I f the pr evai l i ng partyi s the def

endant , att orney ’ s fee s m aybe aw ar ded i f the pl ai nt i ff’ s compl ai ntw as fr i vol ous , unr eas onabl e, orgr oundl es s , ori f the pl ai nt i ff c ont i nued t o l i t i gat e af t eri tw as found s o. B r ow n v. B or ough of C hamber s bur g, 903 F. 2d 274, 277 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ; s ee a l s o Ch r i s t i a n s b u r g Ga r me n tCo . v . E. E. O. C. , 4 3 4 U. S . 4 1 2 , 4 2 2 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Th e S u p r e me C our tfur therel abor at ed that“gr oundl es s ” s t ands for“mer i t l es s . ” See Chri s t i ans bur g, 434 U . S. at422. W e r evi ew the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng att orney ’ s fee s forabus e of d is c re tio n . S e e M a s tr ip p o lito & S o n s , In c . v . J o s e p h , 6 9 2 F .2 d 1 3 8 4 , 1 3 8 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). W e f ind that the D istri ct C o u rth ere d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n b yaw ard ing att o rne y ’s f e e s . B eam as s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bec aus e hers ui tw as notfr i vol ous or gr oundl es s . T he C our tcorr ect l yfound ea ch of Beam ’ s cl ai m s m er i t l es s , w i thoutany gr ounds fors uppor t . Fur therm or e, the C our thas the di s cr et i on t o aw ar d att orney ’ s fee s 2a c iv il c o n s p ir a c yc la im , a n d n o e v id e n c e o f a c o n tr a c t f

o r a b re a c h o f

c o n tr a c t c la im . In th e m o ti o n in o p p o sit ion to ap p ell ee ’s m o ti o n fo r reli ef u n d er F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 38, B eam’ s couns el , D on B ai l ey , cl ai m ed ful l r es pons i bi l i tyand apol ogi zed f orthe a lle g a tio n s a g a in s t J u d g e M c C lu re . 4 u p o n f in d in g th a t th e p la in tif

f ’s a c tio n w a s m e ri tle s s . C h ri s tia n s b u rg , 4 3 4 U .S . a t 4 2 2 . W e a g ree w ith it s fin d ing s an d w e d iscern n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in it s aw ard o f a tt o rne y ’s fees. B eam al s o cont ends thatthe appe l l ees w er e notthe pr evai l i ng part i es . T he p re v a ili n g p a rtyin a § 1 9 8 8 c laim is o n e th a t “s u c c e e d [ e d ] o n a n ysig n if ica n t issu e in l i t i gat i on w hi ch ac hi eves s om e of the bene fi t s the part i es s oughti n br i ngi ng s ui t . ” H ens l eyv. E ckerhart , 461 U . S. 424, 433 ( 1983) ( ci t i ng N adea u v. H el gemoe, 581 F. 2d 275, 278- 79 ( 1s tC i r . 1978) ) ; s ee a l s o Pub. I nt er es tR es ear ch G r oup of N ew J er s eyv. W i ndal l , 515 F. 3d 1179, 1185 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . H er e, the appe l l ees w er e the pr evai l i ng part i es beca us e theys ucce eded i n havi ng eac h cl ai m di s m i s s ed. B eam’ s cont ent i on that th e a p p e llee s w e re n o t th e p re v a ili n g p a rtyis w ith o u t m e rit. Fi nal l y , B eam’ s couns el al l eges thatJ udge M cC l ur e i nt ent i onal l y“s ethi m up” for att orney ’ s fee s and ca l l s foran i nves t i gat i on of the fe der al court s . C ouns el al s o acc us ed 3 Ju d g e M c C lu re o f

a ttem p tin g to h a rm h im in h is p ro f e ss io n a l ca p a c itya n d lim it h is
re p re se n tatio n o f

c lien ts. C o u n se l’s tira d e a g a in st J u d g e M c C lu re a n d th e f e d e ra l co u rt is
un fou nd ed an d u np rofessi on al , and provides no g round s for an app eal of att orney ’s fees. W e ca n di s cern no abus e of di s cr et i on bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n the aw ar d ofA fr i vol ous appea l i s one thatl acks m er i t . See Q ui r oga v. H as br o, 943 F. 2d 346, 4 3 4 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); s e e a ls o H ilm o n C o . v . H y a tt I n t’ l, 8 9 9 F .2 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). W e s ee no r eas on t o aw ar d doubl e fe es and cos t s i n thi s cas e gi ven thatthe 5 purpos e of F ED . R. A PP . P. 38 i s t o m ake a defe ndi ng partyw hol e r atherthan t o puni s h a f ri v o lo u s a p p e a l. B e a m , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 0 8

– 1 0 9 .
5 at t orney ’s fees t o the app el l ees.

B . Sanct i ons U nder F ederalR ul e of A ppel l at e Procedure R ul e 38 T h is C o u rt h a s p re v io u slyc a u tio n e d a p p e llan t th a t an a p p e a l is n o t “a n o p p o rtu n ity foranother‘ bi t e of the appl e, ’ nora forum forthe l os i ng partyt o ‘ cryfoul ’ w i thoutl egal or factual foun dati on . ” B eam v. B auer, 38 3 F . 3d 10 6, 10 8 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). In such cases, F ED . R. A PP . P. 38 compensa t es part i es forthei rfi nanci al l os s i ncurr ed i n defe ndi ng a g a in st f riv o lo u s a p p e a ls. B e a m , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 0 8

– 1 0 9 . R u le 3 8 g iv e s a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls 4 th e d isc re tio n , “a f

ter a se p a ra telyf

iled m o tio n o r n o tice f

ro m th e c o u rt a n d re a so n a b le oppor tuni tyt o r es pond, [t o] aw ar d j us tdamages and s i ngl e ordoubl e cos t s t o the appel l ee. ” F ED . R. A PP . P . 3 8 . A d d iti o n a lly , A p p e llan t’s c o u n se l m a yb e p e rso n a llyliab le forthe aw ar d i f “f

ol l ow i ng a thor ough anal y s i s of the r ecor d and ca r eful r es ear ch of the l aw , a r eas onabl e att orneyw oul d concl ude thatthe appe al i s fr i vol ous . ” H i l m on, 899 F .2 d a t 2 5 4 . T h is a p p e a l is w h o llyw ith o u t m e rit. T h e re is n o b a sis f o r a p p e llan t’s c h a llen g e to the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s att orney ’ s fee aw ar d. A ccor di ngl y , w e aw ar d appel l ees s i ngl e fe es a n d c o sts in th e a m o u n t ex p e n d e d o n th is a p p e a l. 5Fur therm or e, w e hol d appel l ant ’ s couns el per s onal l yl i abl e forthe aw ar d undert he

t es ts etfor th i n H i l m on. W e not e thati f a r eas onabl e att orneyhad ca r eful l yr es ear ched the l aw and ana l y zed the r ecor d, i tw oul d have be en obvi ous thatthi s appea l w as f riv o lo u s. H is c lien t sh o u ld n o t b e liab le f o r h is c o n d u c t. T her efor e, w e af

fi r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s aw ar d of att orney ’ s fee s and gr ant app el l ee’s F ED . R. A PP . P. 38 m ot i on.

____________________________ *H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.