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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 24 65

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ro ge r Fi res , Ind iv id ua ll y , and as P aren ts of C hi ld Doe; Dawn Fi res , Ind iv id ua ll y , an d a s Pa ren ts of C hi ld Doe

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

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Heb er Sp rin gs Sch oo l Di st ric t; Ru ss el l Hes te r, In di vi du al ly, an d i n Hi s Off ic ia l Cap aci ty as Su pe rin te nd en t; Gin ge r W al la ce, In Her Offi ci al Cap aci ty as Pri nc ip al of Hebe r Sp rin gs Hig h S ch oo l; Brad Rees e, In His Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty as Ass is ta nt

Pri nc ip al of He be r Sp rin gs Hig h S ch oo l

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - B at es vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 0, 2 01 4 Fil ed : J un e 2 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Ro ge r an d Dawn Fi res (“ th e Fi res es ”), i n d i vi du al ly an d on be ha lf of th ei r da ug ht er Ch il d Doe
, ap pe al th e am ou nt of at to rn ey ’s fees award ed to th em un de r 42U.S.C. § 19 88

. Afte r th e jury award ed $1 .00 in no m in al da m ag es fo r th ei r un de rlyin g

42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n, th e Fi res es req ue st ed at to rn ey ’s f ees in th e am ou nt of $5 7,2 25 . The d is tri ct co ur t ap pr ov ed a red uc ed fee awa rd of $ 10 ,00 0. 1

The Fi res es br ou gh t th is la wsu it ag ai ns t th e Heb er Sp rin gs Sch oo l Dis tri ct an d

va rio us sc ho ol of

fic ia ls aft er th ei r da ug ht er was su sp en de d fro m sc ho ol an d req ui red

to pe rfo rm co m

m un it y se rv i c e

. Thi s pu ni sh m en t was th e co ns eq ue nc e of a pr an k ph on e cal l th at th e Fi res es ’ da ug ht er an d ot he r st ud en ts pl aced whi le on a sc ho ol tri p

on Apr il Fo ol s’ Day in whi ch th ey fab ric at ed a st or y ab ou t a sc ho ol bu s acci de nt

. The
F i r e s es al le ge d th at th ei r da ug ht er ha d be en pu ni sh ed wit ho ut du e pr oc es s, in
vi ol at io n of the Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t, and cl ai m ed vi ol at io ns of fed eral an d st at e la w. The Fi res es ’ co m

pl ai nt so ug ht co m

pe ns at or y an d p un it iv e d am ag es as well as
pe rm an en t in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. Sh or tl y be fo re tri al
, th e Fi res es vo lu nt ari ly di sm is se d th e in di vi du al -cap aci ty cl ai m s ag ai ns t two of th e sc ho ol of fic ia ls

. Afte r a fo ur -d ay tri al
, th e jury fo un d fo r th e Fi res es on th ei r § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m an d award ed th em $1 .00 as

no m in al da m ag es

.

Fo ll owi ng th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, th e Fi res es req ue st ed $5 7,2 25 in at to rn ey ’s fees

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at an award of at to rn ey ’s fees was ap pr op ria te be cau se th e Fi res es were th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty un de r § 19 88 an d be cau se th ei r vi ct or y was no t

m erel y te ch ni cal or de min imi s

. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed as reas on ab le
th e ho ur ly rat e th at th e Fi res es ’ co un se l p r o p o s e d
, th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e
at to rn ey ’s fee award so ug ht by th e Fi res es was un reas on ab le in li gh t of th e cas e’s la ck
of co m pl ex it y an d th e m in im al rel ie f ob ta in ed by th e Fi res es

. The di st ric t co ur t al so
pr ov id ed th ree ex am

pl es of ex ces si ve ti m e t h a t co un se l ex pe nd ed on th is m at te r. Afte r wei gh in g t he se co ns id erat io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t awa rd ed th e Fi res es $1 0,0 00
fo r at to rn ey ’s fees

.

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-“ Att or ne y ’s fees are wit hi n th e br oa d di sc ret i o n of th e di st ric t co ur t an d wil l

no t be rev ers ed ab se nt an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Han ig v. Lee
, 41 5 F.3 d 82 2, 82 5 (8 th
Ci r. 20 05 ). Und er § 19 88 , a di st ric t co ur t m ay award a reas on ab le att or ne y ’s fee i n

an act io n br ou gh t un de r § 19 83 if th e pl ai nt iff is th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty. 42 U.S

. C

. § 19 88 (b ). A pl ai nt iff is th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty “ whe n act ua l rel ie f on th e m eri ts of hi s cl ai m mat eri al ly al te rs th e le ga l rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa rti es by m od ifyin g th e de fen da nt ’s be ha vi or in a way th at di rect ly be ne fit s th e pl ai nt iff .” Far ra r v. Hob by
, 50 6 U.S. 10 3, 11 1- 12 (1 99 2)

. Thi s “ ge ne ro us fo rm ul at io n” in cl ud es a pl ai nt iff who
win s no m in al da m ag es

. Id

. at 10 9, 11 2; se e Pip er v. O l i v e r , 69 F.3 d 87 5, 87 6 (8 th
Ci r. 19 95 ). Bu t be in g th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty do es no t m ean th at a pl ai nt iff who reco ve rs

no m in al da m ag es is en ti tl ed to at to rn ey ’s fees

. Id

. at 87 7. In de ed
, “ [w]hen a pl ai nt iff

reco ve rs on ly no m in al da m ag es be cau se of hi s fail ur e to pro ve an es se nt ia l elem en t of h i s cl ai m fo r m on et ary rel ie f, th e on ly reas on ab le fee is us ua ll y no fee at al l.”
Mil to n v. Des Moi ne s , 47 F.3 d 94 4, 94 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (q uo ti ng Far ra r , 50 6 U.S. at
11 5)

. In or de r to rece iv e at to rn ey ’s fees
, a p la in ti ff wh o re co ve rs no m in al da m ag es

m us t ach ie ve m or e th an a te ch ni cal or de min imi s vi ct or y

. Pip er , 69 F.3 d at 87 7 (s et ti ng fo rth th ree fact or s rel ev an t to whe th er a p l a i n t i f f ha s ach ie ve d m or e th an a
te ch ni cal or de min imi s vi ct or y ).

If a pl ai nt iff who rece iv es no m in al da m ag es ach ie ve s m or e th an a te ch ni cal or de min imi s vi ct or y , a di st r ic t co ur t sh ou ld award a reas on ab le at to rn ey ’s fee to th e pl ai nt iff

. Se e id

. ; Oll is v. Hear th St on e Home s, In c. , 49 5 F .3d 57 0, 5 76 -7 7 (8 th Cir

. 20 07 ); Lo wr

y ex re l. Cr ow v. W

at s on Ch ap el Sc h. Dis t. , 5 40 F.3 d 75 2, 76 4- 66 (8 th
Ci r. 20 08 ). The “ m os t us efu l st art in g po in t” fo r de te rm in in g a reas on ab le at to rn ey ’s
fee is th e lo de st ar, whi ch is th e pr od u c t o f a reas on ab le ho ur ly rat e an d th e nu m be r of ho ur s reas on ab ly ex pe nd ed on th e m at te r. Hen sl ey v. Ecker ha rt , 46 1 U.S. 42 4, 43 3 (1 98 3)

. W he n ca l c u l a t i ng th e lo de st ar, a di st ric t co ur t ne ed no t acce pt co un se l’s

su bm is si on of ho ur s as co nc lu si ve bu t sh ou ld ex cl ud e fro m th at to ta l th os e ho ur s th at

were no t re as on ab ly exp en de d o n t he li ti ga ti on

. Id

. at 43 3- 34

. A di st ric t cou rt als o

m ay weig h ot he r co ns id erat io n s t o d e t erm in e whe th er an at to rn ey ’s fee sh ou ld be

-3

-ad

jus te d u pwa rd or d own ward fro m th e lo de st ar. Id

. at 4 34 . The “ m os t cr it ic al ” o f
th es e ad di ti on al fact or s is th e de gr ee of su cces s ach ie ve d by th e pl ai nt iff

. Id

. at 43 6-
37 ; Far ra r , 50 6 U.S. at 11 4- 15

.

The Fi res es as se rt th at th e di st ric t co ur t a b us ed it s di sc ret io n by fai li ng to fo ll o w t h e lo de st ar-b as ed m et ho d fro m Hen sl ey

. W e di sa gr ee. The di st ric t co ur t

ex pr es sl y an al y zed bo th of th e in pu ts fo r cal c u l a t i ng th e lo de st ar— a reas on ab le
ho ur ly fee and th e nu m

be r of ho ur s reas on ab ly ex pe nd ed

. Se e Hen sl ey , 46 1 U.S. at
43 3. The co ur t acce pt ed th e Fi res es ’ co un se l’s pr op os ed ho ur ly rat e of $ 2 5 0 a s

r eas on ab le

. And aft er rev ie win g co un se l’s su bm is si on de ta il in g th e ho ur s sh e

ex pe nd ed on th e m at te r, th e co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t s om e o f th e ho ur s sh e bi ll ed were

e x c es si ve

. The di st ric t co ur t al so pr ov id ed th ree ex am pl es of ex ces si v e h o u r s in cl ud ed in co un se l’s ho ur ly to ta l: ti m e fo r tra ve l du rin g tri al ; ti m e sp en t prep ari ng

a m ot io n fo r vo lu nt ary di sm is sa l; an d ti m e ex pe nd ed on th e m at te r ge ne ral ly in li gh t of th e li m it ed di sc ov ery an d m ot io n p ract ic e co nd uc te d i n t he cas e.

The Fi res es co rrec tl y po in t ou t th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ex pr es sl y id en ti fy
al l o f th e ho ur s th at it de em ed to be ex ces si ve

. Thi s o m is si on , th ey co nt en d, m ean s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to cal cu la te th e lo de st ar. Cf

. Qui gl ey v. W in te r , 59 8 F.3 d
93 8, 95 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ The di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re, un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces he re,
to an al y ze [th e pl ai nt iff ’s] en ti tl em en t to at to rn ey fe e s u nd er th e lo de st ar ap pr oa ch

w a s a n ab us e of di sc ret io n.” ). The di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl ic it co ns id erat io n of bo th o f
th e in pu ts in to th e lo de st ar is su ffi ci en t fo r us to co nc l u d e th at th e di st ric t co ur t

pe rfo rm ed th e lo de st ar ca lc ul at io n. Se e Co rb et t v. Su ll iv an , 35 3 F.3d 62 8, 63 1 (8 th
Ci r. 20 03 ) (aff

irming at to rn ey ’s fee award whe re th e di st ric t co ur t “ im pl ie dl y , if no t

ex pl ic it ly” det erm in ed th e lo de st ar); Pad rt a v . Led ar Tra ns po rt , I nc

. , 11 6 F . App ’x
3 6
, 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (p er cu ria m ) (aff irming at to rn ey ’s fee award whe re it w a s

“ ob vi ou s th e di st ric t co ur t en ga ge d in th e lo de st ar an al y si s” ev en th ou gh th e di st ric t

co ur t “ co ul d hav e be en m or e cl ear with reg ard s to whi ch pr eci se bi ll s it fou nd to be

ex ces si ve ”). The Fi res es fu rth er co nt en d th at ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d th e

-4

-lo de st ar, it no ne th el es s ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by cl as si fy in g cert ai n ho ur s as ex ces si ve

.

Howev er, gi vi ng du e de f e r e n c e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s un iq ue un de rs ta nd in g of th e le ga l an d fact ua l is su es im pl ic at ed by th is m at te r an d co un se l’s ha nd li ng of th em , we

can no t sa y th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to cl as si fy as ex ces si ve th e th ree
cat eg or ie s of ho ur s di sc us se d ab ov e am ou nt ed to an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Se e Pol ac co

v. Cu ra to rs of Uni v. of

Mo.
, 37 F.3 d 36 6, 37 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ); W in te r v. Cer ro Gor do
Cn ty . Con se rv at io n Bd

. , 92 5 F .2d 10 69 , 10 74 (8t h C ir. 1 99 1)

.

The Fi res es al so ob

ject to th e do wnwar d ad

jus tm en t of t h e i r at to rn ey ’s fees
ba se d on th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on s reg ard in g th e m in im al rel ie f th at th ey ob ta in ed an d th e cas e’s la ck of co m pl ex it y

. The Fi res es cl ai m th at ot he r

co ns id erat io ns weig h ag ai ns t th e do wnwar d ad jus tm en t, in cl ud in g th ei r a t t o r n ey ’s

ex pe rie nc e, rep ut at io n, an d ab il it y ; th e un de si rab il it y of th e cas e an d th e sk il l req ui red

to li ti ga te it ; th e na tu re of th e at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p; an d award s in si m il ar cas es

. Alt ho ug h th e Hen sl ey Co u r t a c k no wled ge d th at a di st ric t co ur t m ay co ns id er th es e fact or s in d e t e r mi n in g a reas on ab le at to rn ey ’s fee, 46 1 U.S. at 42 9 n.3
, 43 4 n.9
, it

em ph as iz ed th at “ m an y of th es e fact or s us ua ll y are su bs um ed wit hi n t h e in it ia l
cal cu la ti on of ho ur s reas on ab ly ex pe nd ed at a reas on ab le ho ur ly rat e.” Id

. at 43 4 n.9 ;

se e al so Har dma n v. Bd. of Edu c. of Dol la rw ay , 7 14 F.2 d 82 3, 82 5 (8 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 3) (p er cu ria m ). The Hen sl ey Co ur t al so he ld th at th e de ci si on to ad jus t at to rn ey ’s fees
fro m th e lo de st ar am ou nt to acco un t fo r li m it ed su cces s is an eq ui ta bl e jud gm en t fo r whi ch “ [t]he re is no pr eci se ru le or fo rm ul a.” 46 1 U.S. at 43 6- 37

. The di st ric t co ur t’s
rel ia nc e o n th e li m it ed co m pl ex it y of th is m at te r an d th e m in im al rel ie f ob ta in ed by
th e Fi res es di d no t co ns ti tu te an ab us e of di sc ret io n. The Fi res es ’ co un se l ad m it s th at th is was a run -o f-t he m il l ca se wit h i ss ue s t ha t wer e ne it he r no ve l n or di ffi cu lt , and
th e ch as m be twee n th e Fi res es ’ req ue st ed r e l i e f a n d th e rel ie f th at th ey ob ta in ed is

va st

. The Fi res es ’ co m

pl ai nt req ue st ed co m

pe ns at or y an d p u n i t i ve da m ag es an d

pe rm an en t in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. Tho ug h th e Fi res es pr ev ai le d be fo re th e jury, th ey were award ed on ly $1 .00 in no m in al da m ag es

. As su ch
, th e di st ric t co ur t was well wit hi n

-5

-it s di sc ret io n to red uc e th e Fi res es ’ at to rn ey ’s fees to $1 0,0 00

. Se e id

. ; Far ra r , 50 6

U.S. at 1 14 -1 5. We affi rm

.

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

-6

-