2010 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 2-4-2010 

# C h arles Guarnie ri, Jr

. v . Durye a B or 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 . 08-4428

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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
" C h arle s G uarnie ri, Jr

. v . Durye a Bor " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1933. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1933NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 3949
C H A R L E S J . G U A R N IE R I, J r.

v. D U R Y E A B O R O U G H ; D U R Y E A B O R O U G H C O U N C IL ; A N N D O M M E S , Indi vidual l yand i n h er O ffi ci al C apacityas C o u n cil P reside n t; L O IS M O R R E A L E , Ind ividu all yan d in h er O f f ic ia l C a p a c ity a s B o ro u g h S e c re ta ry; F R A N K G R O B L E W S K I, In d iv id u a llya n d in h is O f f icia l C a p a c itya s C o u n c ilm a n ; E D W A R D O R K W IS, Indi vidual l yand i n h i s O ffi ci al C apacityas C o u n c ilm a n ; R O B E R T W E B B , In d iv id u a llya n d in h is O f f icia l C a p a c ity a s C o u n c ilm a n ; A U D R E Y Y A G E R , In d iv id u a llya n d in h e r O f f icia l C ap ac ityas C o u n cil w o m an ; JO A N O R L O S K I, Ind ividu all yan d in h er O f f i c i a l C a p a c i t y a s C o u n c i l w o m a n ; A K U L O N I S , I n d i v i d u a l l y and i n hi s O ffi ci al C apac i t yas C ounci l m an, A p p e llan ts

N o. 08- 4428

C H A R L E S J . G U A R N IE R I, J r., A ppel l ant

v. D U R Y E A B O R O U G H ; D U R Y E A B O R O U G H C O U N C IL ; A N N D O M M E S , I n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h e rO f f i c i a l C a p a c i t y as C ounci l Pr es i dent ; L O I S M O R R E A L E , I ndi vi dual l yand i n h e rOf f i c i a l Ca p a c i t ya s Bo r o u g h S e c r e t a r y ; F RA NK G R O B L E W S K I , I n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h i s O f f i c i a l C a p a c i t y as C ounci l m an; E D W A R D O R K W I S, I ndi vi dual l yand i n h is O f f ic ia l C a p a c ity a s C o u n c ilm a n ; R O B E R T W E B B ,2 In d iv id u a llya n d in h is O f f icia l C a p a c itya s C o u n c ilm a n ; A U D R E Y Y A G E R , I n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h e rO f f i c i a l C a p a c i t y as C o u n cil w o m an ; JO A N O R L O S K I, Ind ividu all yan d in h er O f f i c i a l C a p a c i t y a s C o u n c i l w o m a n ; A K U L O N I S , I n d i v i d u a l l y and i n hi s O ffi ci al C apac i t yas C ounci l m an O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C
. N o. 3- 05- cv- 01422 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A
. R i char d C aput o

A r gued O ct ober27, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: February4, 2010)

_____ C ynthi a L. Pol l i ck ( A r gued) Th e Em p l o yme n tLa w Fi r m Pi t t s t on, PA l 8640 A tto rn e yf

o r A p p e lla n t in N o . 0 8 -4 4 2 8 , A ppel l ee i n N o. 08- 3949 K ar ol i ne M ehal chi ck ( A r gued) J os eph A
. O ’ B r i en O l i ver , Pr i ce & R hodes C l arks Sum m i t , PA 18411 JenniferW al sh U fber g & A s s oci at es Scr ant on, PA l 8503 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ees i n N o. 08- 4428 A ppel l ant s i n N o. 08- 39493 OP I NI ON

S L O V IT E R , C irc u it Judge
. A ppel l ant s D ur y ea Borough, the B or ough Secr et ary , and mem ber s of the B or ough C ounci l ( col l ect i vel y“D efe ndant s ”) appea l a j ury ’ s ver di ctand aw ar d of puni t i ve damages on cl ai m s t hatt heyvi ol at ed the Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o pet i t i on of appe l l ee C har l es J . G uarni er i , t he form erC hi ef of Pol i ce of

D ury ea. G uarni er i cr os s - appea l s t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s re d u c tio n o f h is a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s . I . Backg r ound In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 3 , the D u ry e a B o ro u g h C o u n c il d ism iss e d G u a rn ier i f ro m h is p o s itio n a s C h ie f

o f P o lic e . G u a rn ie ri f

ile d a u n io n g ri e v a n c e , w h ic h le d to a n a rb itr a tio n . A f te r a b o u t tw o y e a rs , G u a rn ie ri p re v a ile d a n d w a s re in s ta te d to h is p o s itio n a s C h ie f
. O n h is f irst d a yb a c k , in J a n u a ry2 0 0 5 , the C o u n c il i ss u e d e lev e n “ d ire c tiv e s” to G uarni er i
. T hes e di r ect i ves compri s ed a l i s tof thi ngs thatG uarni er i m us tdo orcoul d not do on the j ob. G uarni er i fi l ed a uni on gr i evanc e t o compl ai n aboutthe di r ect i ves , w hi ch l ed t o anotherarbi t r at i on. U l t i m at el y , the arbi t r at ordi r ect ed D ury ea t o m odi fyorabandon
s o m e o f th e d ir e c tiv e s .F o r ex a m p le, th e C o u n c il a p p a re n tlyto ld G u a rn ier i n o t to 1 part i ci pate i n tru ancyand seatbeltprogram s even thou gh t ho se act i vi t i es w er e funde d b y a gr antand cos tthe B or ough not hi ng. A l s o, G uarni er i s oughtt o have hi s heal t h i ns ur ance coverhi s w i fe, b u t th e B o rou g h S ec retary, M o rre ale, did n o t cred itG u arn ieri ’s as s er t i on t hat he w as m arr i ed and de m anded a ddi t i onal paperw or k, even though G uarni er i s ubm i t t ed a mar r i age l i cence s i gned by D u rye a ’s m a y o r. 4 O ther di sputes , often petty , arose bet w een G uarni eri and D efen dan t s. A s a re su lt, 1 G uarni er i fi l ed thi s l aw s ui t , cl ai m i ng i n r el evantpartthatthe di r ect i ves and otheract s by D ury ea c ons t i tut ed uncons t i tut i onal r et al i at i on forhi s havi ng fi l ed and w on hi s 2003 g ri e v a n c e . In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 6 , G u a rn ier i su b m itt e d a re q u e st f o r a p p ro x im a tely$ 3 3 8 .0 0 in
over t i m e. T he overt i m e w as deni ed bythe C ounci l on t he gr ound t hatG uarni er i di d not expl ai n w hyt he overt i m e w as nece s s ary . T he D epart m entof Labori nves t i gat ed and

“ f o u n d [ th a t w ith h o ld in g th e ] o v e rt im e . . . w a s a v io la tio n ” o f th e la w . A p p a t 6 4 9
. G u a rn ie ri a m e n d e d h is c o m p la in t to a d d th e o v e rt im e d e n ia l a s a re ta lia to ry a c t. T hr ee of G uarni er i ’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m s r eac hed the j ury : ( 1) t he i s s uance of the di r ect i ves ; ( 2) t he purpor t ed del ayi n t he i s s uance of hea l t h i ns ur ance ben efi t s; and (3) t he w i t hh oldi ng of o vert i m e. T he juryfou nd for G uarni eri on the fir st and thir d clai m s, and aw arded h i m a t otal of $ 45 , 35 8. 00 i n co m pen sat orydam ages – $5, 000 agai ns teac h i ndi vi dual defe ndantfordamages der i vi ng fr om the di r ect i ves ; and $350. 00 fordamages due byt he B or ough and one dol l ardue fr om eac h i ndi vi dual for
w i thhol di ng t he overt i m e. T he j ur yal s o aw ar ded G uarni er i a t ot al of $52, 000 i n puni t i ve5

damages – $3, 000 agai ns teac h i ndi vi dual defe ndantfori s s uance of the di r ect i ves , and $ 3 ,5 0 0 a g a in s t e a c h in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e o v e rt im e . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed D efe ndant s ’ m ot i ons forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw and fora new t r i al
. T he C our t , how ever , gr ant ed i n par tD efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o r educe t he att o rne y ’s fe es re q u ested b yG u arn ieri
. Itfirstred u ce d the re q u ested n u m b er o f h o u rs ( 473. 8) byni nety - one bec aus e of “ dupl i cat i venes s [w i t h a s i m i l arFi r s tA m endment
r et al i at i on cas e aga i ns tD ur y ea br oughtbya B or ough empl oy ee, al s o r epr es ent ed by G uarni er i ’ s l aw y er ]
. . . i nappl i cabi l i t y. . . [and] exce s s i venes s . ” A pp. at47- 48. A ft er
m aki ng s om e otherdeduct i ons , t he C our tarr i ved ata “t ot al of thr ee hundr ed ni nety( 390) hour s ” thati tfound t o be r eas onabl e forthe w or k per form ed byG uarni er i ’ s l aw y er thro u g h the tri al. A p p . at 48
. T h e C o u rtthen ad d ed thirty -tw o h o u rs fo r po st- tr ial w o rk to w h ich D ef

en d an ts did n o t object an d m ad e a fe w o ther a d justm en ts t o the to tal h o u rs
n o t r e le v a n t h e re . A f ter re v iew in g G u a rn ier i’s c o u n se l’s e x p e rie n c e , the C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t a
r eas onabl e r at e w as $215 an hour , r atherthan the r eques t ed r at e of $300 a n hour
. T he C our tr efe r ence d i t s pr i ordeci s i on i n Lohm an v. B or ough , N o . 0 5
- 1 4 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 WL 2951070, at*7- 8 ( M . D . Pa. J ul y30, 2008) , w her e i thad fi xed G uarni er i ’ s couns el ’ s fee at $215 an hour
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tcal cul at ed thatthe “l odes t ar ” forthe s um of al l l egal
w or k on G uarni er i ’ s cas e w as $102, 110. 25. T he C our tm ade a fur t her , om ni bus r educt i onT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j uri sd ict ion unde r28 U
. S. C
. §§ 2 1 3 3 1 an d 1 3 4 3
. T h is co u rt h as j u ri sd ict ion u n d er 28 U . S
. C . § 1 2 9 1
. 6 t o the l od est ar of ov er 50% ; i n the end i taw arded o nly$4 5, 00 0 in fees. 2 I I . A n a ly sis D efe ndant s cont end theyar e ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas m att erof l aw , ar gui ng: ( 1) that the ev i den ce did no tsupp orta fi nd i ng of p un i t i ve d am ages; (2) that the F i rs t A m endmentdoes notpr ot ectgovernm entempl oy ees fr om r et al i at i on forthe fi l i ng of pet i t i ons unl es s t heyaddr es s m att er s of publ i c conc ern; ( 3) thatG uarni er i ’ s pet i t i oni ng act i vi tyw as notpr ot ect ed bec aus e i tw as per form ed pur s uantt o hi s offi ci al dut i es ; ( 4) t hat D e f e n d a n ts w e re e n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityb e c a u se th e law w a s n o t cle a rly estab li sh ed ; and (5) tha t, fo r a v arietyo f re aso n s, the e v iden ce w as in su ff ici en t t o su p p o rt l i abi l i ty . D efe ndant s al s o ar gue theyar e due a new tr i al beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed their req u est t o intr o d u ce into e v iden ce sec ti o n s o f th e 2 0 0 5 arb itrator’s rep o rt . G u arn ieri
c ro s s -a p p e a ls th e C o u rt ’s o m n ib u s re d u c tio n o f th e lo d e s ta r. A. The Fi r s t Am e nd men t a nd Q ua l i f i e d I mm un i t y T hi s courthel d t hat“a publ i c empl oy ee w ho has pet i t i oned the governm ent thr ough a form al m echa ni s m s uch as the fi l i ng of a l aw s ui torgr i evanc e i s pr ot ect ed
un der the P et i t i on C l ause from ret al i at i on for that act i vity , even i f t he p et i t i on con cerns a
m at t erof s ol el ypr i vat e conc ern. ” For akerv. C haf f i nch , 501 F. 3d 231, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2007)“ We r e v i e w a d e n i a l o f j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w de 3 novo , vi ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pr evai l i ng part y . ” Mo n teir o v . C ity o f E liza b e th , 436 F. 3d 397, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng C averv. C i t y of Tre nt on , 4 2 0 F.3d 243, 262 (3d Cir. 2005)). 7 ( ci t i ng San F i l i

ppo v. B ongi ovanni , 3 0 F .3 d 4 2 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 )). D e f e n d a n ts u rg e u s to
overrul e thathol di ng beca us e othercour t s of appe al s di s agr ee, s ee San Fi l i ppo , 30 F. 3d at 4 4 0 n . 1 9 (c o llec tin g c a se s); Ma rtin v . C ity o f D e l C ity , 1 7 9 F . 3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 9 (10 th C ir
. 1999) , butw e ar e bound byourpr i orhol di ng. D efe ndant s al s o as s er tt hat“nei t herthe Thi r d C i r cui tnorthe Supr eme C our thas deci ded the ques t i on of w hetherornotan empl oy ee w ho i s pet i t i oni ng the governm ent pur s uantt o hi s offi ci al dut i es i s act i ng as a ci t i zen f orFi r s tA m endmentpurpos es . ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r i ef a t24 ( ci t i ng G ar cet t i v. C ebal l os , 547 U
. S. 410, 421 ( 2006) )
. W e nee d notdeci de thati s s ue bec aus e D efe ndant s ci t e t o no evi dence thatG uarni er i ’ s uni on g ri e v a n c e w a s m a d e p u rs u a n t to h is o f f ic ia l d u tie s . O urdeci s i on i n San F i l i ppo is c lea rlye sta b lish e d , co n tro lli n g law , an d D e f e n d a n ts
a re n o t e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. See Franc is co Jos e Ri ver o v. C i t y and C ount

y of San Fr ancis co , 316 F. 3d 857, 865 ( 9t h C i r . 2002) ( “The i s s ue i s notw hatthe l aw w as or
m i ghthave be en i n ot herci r cui t s . . . . [i ] ti s , r ather , w hatthe ‘ contr ol l i ng author i t yi n [the defe ndant s ’ ] j ur i s di ct i on [w as ] att he t i m e of the i nci dent
. ’ ” ( quot i ng W i l s on v. Layne , 5 2 6 U .S . 6 0 3 , 6 1 7 (1 9 9 9 ))
. B . Suff i ci ency of t he evi dence 3D om m es and W ebb t es t i fi ed but appar ent l y neverdeni ed 4 t hat t hey or ot hers part i ci pated on t he C ou ncil att he rel evan tt i m es. 8 D efe ndant s ’ ar gum entt hatB or ough Secr et aryM orr eal e i s notl i abl e bec aus e s he
w as m er el yper form i ng cl er i cal dut i es bel i es the evi dence
. A m ong ot herthi ngs , the C ounci l act ed thr ough M or r eal e, D ur y ea’ s per s onnel m anage r , w ho w as r es pons i bl e for pay i ng G uarni er i , and the di r ect i ve s t at i ng thatG uarni er i had t o obeyor der s w as gi ven by the C ounci l t hr ough M or r eal e. “Per s onal i nvol vementcan be s how n t hr ough al l egat i ons of per s onal di r ect i on orof ac tual know l edge a nd acqui es cenc e. ” R o d e v . D e lla rc ip re te , 8 4 5 F .2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). D e f e n d a n ts a lso a rg u e th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t D o m m e s, G ro b lew sk i, O rk w is , W e b b , Y a g e r, a n d O rl o s k i w e re in v o lv e d in th e w ith h o ld in g o f o v e rt im e . H o w ev er, th eyall h ad b ee n C o u n cil m em b ers a t som e ti m e a n d d id n o t argu e to th e jury that theyw ere n o lon g er C o u n cil m em b ers w h en the d ec isi o n d en y ing G u arn ieri ’s
over t i m e payw as m ade. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr efe r ence d ampl e w i t nes s t es t i m onyfr om 4
w h ic h a ju ro r c o u ld re a s o n a b ly in f e r i t w a s th e C o u n c il th a t w ith h e ld th e o v e rt im e . D efe ndant s ’ ar gum ent s t hatthe onl yevi dence of r et al i at i on w as t empora l p ro x im ity, a n d th a t th e te m p o ra l p ro x im ity e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t a re u n p e rs u a s iv e . T he di r ect i ves w er e i s s ued the daythatG uarni er i r eturned t o w or k; ther e w as evi dence of cont i nued ac r i m onybetw een G uarni er i and D efe ndant s ; and thi s act i on w as ongoi ng
w h e n th e o v e rt im e w a s w ith h e ld
.9

D efe ndant s ar gue thatt he i s s uance of the di r ect i ves and the fa i l ur e t o pay G uarni er i forovert i m e w oul d nothave de t err ed “a per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s fr om
exer ci s i ng hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r i ef a t35. Fi r s tA m endment retali ati o n claim s are ind ee d co g n izab le on lyw h en the re tal iat o ryac t w o u ld “‘d eter a per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s ’ fr om exer ci s i ng hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s , ” Suppan v. D adonna , 2 0 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ), b u t th e “ ‘de terrenc e thre sh o ld,’
. . . is ve ry lo w . . . . [ a s ] a c a u s e o f a c tio n is s u p p lie d b ya ll b u t tru ly d e m in im is v io la tio n s ,” O ' C on no r v. C i t

y of N ew ark , 440 F. 3d 125, 128 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng Suppan, 203 F. 3d at 23 4 -35 ). “E v en ‘an ac t of retali ati o n as tri v ial as f ail ing to h o ld a b irthd ayp artyfo r a publ i c empl oy ee, ’ i f ‘ i nt ended t o puni s h herforexer ci s i ng herfr ee s peec h r i ght s , ’ m aybe act i onabl e . . . . ” O ’ C onnor , 440 F. 3d at128 ( quot i ng Suppan, 203 F. 3d at234) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n s o m itt e d )). T h e ju ryw a s in stru c ted to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re talia tio n in th is
c a se w o u ld h a v e d e ter re d a p e rso n o f o rd in a ryf

irm n e ss , an d w e w ill n o t se c o n d -g u e ss its
v e rd ict. T he ar gum entof D ur y ea Borough thati thad no pol i cyorcus t om conce r ni ng any of the ac t i ons of w hi ch G uarni er i compl ai ns and ther efor e has no l i abi l i t yi s unavai l i ng beca us e a “ s i ngl e dec i s i on bya fi nal pol i cy - m aker
. . . m aycons t i tut e off i ci al pol i cy , ” San F i l i ppo , 30 F. 3d at445 ( ci t i ng P e m b a u r v . C ity o f C in c in n a ti , 475 U
. S. 469, 480- 81 ( 1986) )
. T her e w as ampl e evi dence thatthe C ounci l both m ade Borough pol i cyand w as
re s p o n s ib le f

o r t h e re ta lia to ry a c ts .10

C . N ew t ri al D e f e n d a n ts c h a llen g e th e D istric t C o u rt’s e x c lu sio n o f th e 2 0 0 5 a rb itrato r’s re p o rt. D efe ndant s do nots peci fyanyerr ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r eas oni ng thatthe r epor tw as hear s ay . T hei rci t at i ons and ar gum ent s conce r ni ng pr ej udi ce, how ever , ar e unconvi nci ng; i ndeed, dur i ng t he tr i al t he C our tuphel d m anyof thei robj ect i ons t o G uarni er i ’ s us e of the
re p o rt . D e f

e n d a n ts h a d a m p le o p p o rt u n ity, w h ic h th e yu s e d , to te ll th e irp o s itio n . D . P uni t i ve dam ages D ef en d an ts argu e tha t th ere w as in su ff ici en t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s aw ard
o f p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . See Sp ri ng er v. Henry , 435 F. 3d 268, 281 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thata “j ur ym ayaw ar d puni t i ve damages w hen i tfi nds r eckl es s , cal l ous , i nt ent i onal , or
m a licio u s c o n d u c t.”). W e a g re e w ith th e m o n th is p o in t. A lth o u g h th e re c o rd su p p o rts the ju ry ’s find ing that issua n ce o f th e d ir ec ti v es a n d the w ith h o lding o f o v erti m e p ayw ere
r et al i at oryact s , and thatt hos e ac t s w er e pett yand ca r el es s , nei t herthos e ac t s , noranyof the otherpett yand ca r el es s act s comm i t t ed byD efe ndant s , s how “r eckl es s orcal l ous i ndi ffe r ence t o t he fe der al l ypr ot ect ed r i ght s of other s . ” B r ennan v. N or t on , 350 F. 3d 399, 428 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng Sm i th v. W ade , 46 1 U
. S
. 30 , 56 (1983 ))
. O veral l , these act s s uppor tl i t t l e “mor e than the r et al i at orym ot i ve i t s el f. ” B r ennan , 3 5 0 F .3 d a t 4 2 9 -3 0
. E . A t t orney’s f

ees Fi nal l y , i n hi s cr os s - appea l G uarni er i chal l enges the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r educt i on of the lo d estar. T h e D istri ct C o u rtg av e the fo ll o w ing rea so n s: ( 1 ) th e “ o v erlap p ing labo r”N ot abl y , t he D i s t r i ct C ourt di d not apport i on bas ed on the 5 n u m b er o f su cc essf

u l cl aim s. N o r did the D istri ct C o u rt ch ara cterize the w o rk b yG u arn eri’s at torn eyas in fe ri o r. G uarni er i al s o ar gues the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n s ett i ng 6 c o u n s e l’ s h o u rl yra te a t $ 2 1 5 . T h a t r a te is n o t c le a r e rr o r. See U n itedA u to . W

o rk e rs L o c a l 2 5 9 S o c . Se c . D e p ’t v . Me tro A u to C tr. , 5 0 1 F . 3 d 2 8 3 , 2 9 0 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ); see al so Lohm an 574 F. 3d at164 n. 1. 11 w i th the Lohm an c a se ; (2 ) its b e lief th a t G u a rn ier i’s c a se w a s n o t n o v e l o r d if f icu lt beca us e the i s s ues w er e s i m i l art o t hos e i n Lohm an , an d b e c a u se c o u n se l h a d b ro u g h t § 1983 cl ai m s i n t he pas t ; ( 3) t he ca s e w as t aken on a cont i ngencybas i s , w hi ch, atan
as s um ed 33% fee r at e ( no r at e w as pr ovi ded t o t he C our t ) w oul d have r es ul t ed i n an at t or ney ’ s aw ar d of about$40, 000; and, ( 4) the att orney ’ s fee aw ar d i n Lohm an w a s o n ly $30, 000. R eli an ce o n thes e re aso n s w as leg al error.

5 6 “ We r e v i e w a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s a wa r d o f f e e s f o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n [ , ]
. . . r e v i e w a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s f

a c tu a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g . . . th e n u m b e ro f h o u r s [ a n a t t o r n e y]
r eas onabl yw or ked on the ca s e, forcl earerr or [, ]
. . . [and] [w ] e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew
overt he l egal s t andar d t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tus ed i n cal cul at i ng the aw ar d. ” U ni t ed Aut o. W orkers Lo cal 259 S oc. Sec. D ep’tv. Metro A uto C tr. , 501 F. 3d 283, 290 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (c itatio n s a n d q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ); St udent P ub. I nt er es tR es ear ch G r oup of N ew Jer s ey, Inc. v. A T

& T B el lL ab s. , 8 4 2 F .2 d 1 4 3 6 , 1 4 4 2 n . 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). I n C i t y of B ur l i ngt on v. D ague, the Supr eme C our ts t at ed that“the di ffi cul t yof est abli shi ng [t he] m eri t s” of a clai m i s “ordi nari l yrefl ect ed in the lodest ar . . . [and thu s]T he D i s t r i ctC our tfur t hererred beca us e i tgave 7 D efe ndant s r el i ef theyneveras ked for – D efe ndant s onl yr eques t ed re d u c tio n s f

o r sp e c if ica llyid e n tifie d h o u rs a s o v e rla p p in g w ith Lohm an , and s t at ed that“[i ]f ti m e w as m arked as s peci fi cal l yfor w o rk d o n e o n th e G u a rn ier i m a tter, D e f e n d a n ts d o n o t se e k to re d u c e th a t ti m e .” D ist. C t. D k t. 1 3 3 p g . # 1 4
. O rd in a rily , C o u rts sh o u ld n o t su a sp o n te ap p ly n eg ati v e m u lt ipli ers. S e e R o d e , 892 F. 2d at1192. W e recogni ze thatthe r efe r ence d Supr eme C our tcas es 8 pr ohi bi t ed doubl e count i ng i n connec t i on t o t he i n creas e of f ees aw ards, and t hat her e t he D i stri ctC ou rt d e c re a sed t he fe es. H ow ever , D efe ndant s m ake no a r gum ent , and w e ca n t hi nk of n o n e , w h yth e se h o ld in g s w o u ld n o t ap p lye q u a llyto p ro h ib it a 12 [t ] aki ng acc ountof i tagai n t hr ough l odes t arenhanc ementamount s t o doubl e count i ng. ” 50 5 U . S
. 55 7, 56 2-63 (19 92 ) ( i nternal ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he S up rem e C ou rthas al so

“ sp e c if ica llyh e ld
. . . tha t th e ‘n o v e lty[ a n d ] c o m p lex ityo f th e iss u e s,’ ‘th e sp e c ial s k ill and expe r i ence of couns el , ’ t he ‘ qual i t yof r epr es ent at i on, ’ and the ‘ r es ul t s obt ai ned’ fr om the l i t i gat i on ar e pr es um abl yful l yr efl ect ed i n t he l odes t aramount , and thus cannots erve
as i ndepende ntbas es fori ncr eas i ng the bas i c fe e aw ar d. ” P enn sylvan i a v. D el aw are V a lley C iti ze n s’ C o u n c il f

o r C lea n A ir , 478 U
. S. 546, 565 ( 1986) ( quot i ng B l um v. St ens on , 4 6 5 U . S
. 8 8 6 , 8 9 8 -90 0 (19 8 4 )) ; U nited A uto. W

orkers , 501 F. 3d at292. T he fa ct or s on w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed i n r educi ng thi s “l odes t ar , ” i
. e. , t he di ffi cul tyof the ca s e, over l appi ng hour s , and couns el ’ s exper i ence , w er e the s ame as t he fa ctors itco n side red in es tablishing the lo d estar. 7 T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o err ed byus i ng the cont i ngencynatur e of a cas e t o r educe f e e s , a p r a c t i c e s p e c i f

i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d b y D ague . See 505 U
. S. at561- 62. I n addi t i on, 8d i s t r i c tc o u r tf r o m do u b l e c o u n t i n g t o r e d u c e f e es . See , e .g , V

an G er w en v. G uar ant ee M ut . Li f e C o. , 2 1 4 F . 3 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 4 8 (9th C ir
. 2000) ( “A di s t r i ctcourtm aynotr el yon a cont i ngencyagr eement to in c re a se o r d e c re a se w h a t itd e ter m in e s to b e a re a so n a b le att o rne y ' s fe e.”). 13 the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s us e of the fe e aw ar d i n Lohm an (w h e re th e lo d e sta r w a s s ig n if ica n tly l ow er ) as s uppor tfort he dow nw ar d m ul t i pl i erw as err or . T he aw ar d i n t hatcas e w as
r educe d s i gni fi cant l ybeca us e the pl ai nt i ff ha d r ej ect ed a s et t l ementoffe rthatw as m uch h ig h e r t h a n th e u ltim a te ju ry a w a rd
. Lohm an , 574 F. 3d 163. T her e i s no evi dence of s uch an off erher e. Fur t her , t he j ur yi n Lohm an aw ar ded the pl ai nt i ff onl y$12, 000. O t hert han
o v erlap p ing w o rk a n d co u n sel’s fa m il iari tyw ith the leg al i ssu es, bo th o f w h ich w ere
s ubs um ed i nt o t he l odes t ar , t her e i s l i t t l e r eas on w hythe fe e aw ar d i n Lohm an is re lev a n t. I I I . C oncl usi on T he j ur y ’ s ver di cton t he mer i t s w i l l be uphel d exce ptforthe puni t i ve damages
aw ard , w h ich w il l be v ac ated
. T h is case w il l be re m an d ed to the D istri ct C o u rtfo r a
re c a lc u la tio n o f

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s c o n s is te n t w ith th e s ta n d a rd s a rt ic u la te d in th is o p in io n .