# 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- 41 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
St at e o f Nor th Dako ta ; In du st ria l Co m m is si on of No rth Dako ta ; Li gn it e Ene rg y Co un ci l; Bas in Elec tri c Po wer Co op erat iv e; The No rth Am eri can Co al Co rp or at io n; Great Nort he rn Pro pe rti es Lim it ed Part ne rs hi p; Mi ss ou ri B as in Mu ni ci pa l Po wer Ag en cy , do in g b us in es s as Mi ss ou ri R iv er En erg y Serv ic es ; Mi nn ko ta Po wer Co op erat iv e, In c.,

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

ff s - Ap pe ll ees ,

v.

Nan cy Lang e, Co m

m is si on er an d C ha ir, M in ne so ta Pu bl ic Uti li ti es Co m m is si on ; Jo hn Tum a, Co m

m is si on er, Mi nn es ot a Pu bl ic Uti li ti es Co m m is si on ; Dan M. Lip sc hu lt z, Co m

m is si on er an d Vi ce Ch ai r, Mi nn es ot a Pu bl ic Uti li ti es Co m m is si on ; Kat ie Sie be n, Co m m is si on er, Mi nn es ot a Pu bl ic Uti li ti es Co m m is si on ; M at th ew Sch ue rg er, Co m m is si on er, Mi nn es ot a Pu bl ic Uti li ti es Co m m is si on ; J es si ca Lo om an , Com m is si on er, Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t o f Co m m erce , each in hi s o r he r of fic ia l ca pa ci ty, 1

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

an ts - App el la nt

s

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

App el la nt Loo m an is au to m at i c a l l y su bs ti tu te d fo r he r pr ed eces so r un de r 1 Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro ced ur e 4 3( c)(2 ).Su bm it te d: Octo be r 18 , 20 17 Fi le d: Aug us t 1 4, 2 01 8 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Thi s ap pe al co nc ern s an award of at t o r n e y’ s fees

. In a pr ev io us ap pe al
, th is

co u r t h e l d th at po rti on s of Mi nn es ot a’s Nex t Gen erat io n Ene rg y Act were

un co ns ti tu ti on al

. No rt h Dak ot a v. Heyd in ge r , 82 5 F.3 d 91 2 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 6 ). On

rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at t h e pl ai nt iff s were en ti tl ed to at to rn ey ’s 2
fees an d award ed th em $1 ,31 0,0 88 in fees an d co st s. No rt h Dak ot a v. Heyd in ge r , No.
11 -cv -3 23 2, 20 16 WL 5 6 6 19 26
, at *2 8 (D. Mi nn

. Sep t. 29
, 20 16 ). The St at e of Mi nn es ot a, th ro ug h i ts off ic ers , app eal s t he award

.

Afte r t h e d e a th of on e jud ge on th e pa ne l, th e rem ai ni ng two jud ge s ha ve de te rm in ed th e m at te r un de r Eig ht h Ci rcu it Ru le 47 E. Th e re is no op in io n fo r th e
pa ne l, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r is affi rm ed

. Ju dg e Co ll ot on ’s vi ews are se t fo rth in a co nc ur rin g o pi ni on . Ju dg e Lok en co nc ur s i n t he res ul t.

Ju dg e Mu rp hy di ed on May 16
, 20 18
, an d th us di d no t pa rti ci pa te in th e fin al * de ci si on on th is ap pe al

. The Hon or ab le Su sa n Ri ch ard Nels on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f o r th e 2 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
-2

-COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

In 20 07
, Mi nn es ot a a d o p t e d th e Nex t Gen erat io n Ene rg y Act, a st at ut e de si gn ed in pa rt to reg u l a t e “g reen ho us e ga s em is si on s an d ren ewab le en erg y

s t an da rd s.” Ch

. 13 6, 20 07 Mi nn

. Laws 13 59
, 13 59

. The Act req ui red
, in re l e v a n t
pa rt, t ha t “ no pe rs on sh al l . .

. (2 ) im po rt or com m it to im

po rt f ro m ou ts id e th e st at e
po wer fro m a ne w la rg e en erg y faci li ty th at w o u ld co nt rib ut e to st at ewid e po wer

se ct or carb on di ox id e em is si on s; or (3 ) en te r in to a ne w lo ng -te rm po wer pu rc h a se
ag reem en t th at wou ld in crea se st at ewid e po wer se ct or carb on di ox id e em i s s i o n s.” Mi nn . Sta t. § 21 6H.0 3, s ub di v. 3 (2 )-(3 ) (2 01 6)

. 3

Sev eral pa rti es —i nc lu di ng th e St at e of Nor th Dak ot a, th e In du st ria l
Co m m is si on of Nor th Dak ot a, an d a nu m be r of pr iv at e e ne rg y co m pa ni es an d

co op erat iv es —s ue d to en joi n Mi nn es ot a fro m en fo rci ng th e A c t

. The se pl ai nt iff s br ou gh t a cl ai m un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83
, as se rti ng th at en fo rcem en t of th e Act wou ld vi ol at e th e “ do rm an t” Co m m erce Cl au se

. The y cl ai med a l t ern at iv el y th at th e Mi nn es ot a Act was pr eem pt ed by bo th th e Fed eral Po wer Act an d th e Cl ean Air Act. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e Act vi ol at ed th e do rm an t Co m m erce Cl au se an d

en joi ne d en fo rcem en t of th e st at ut e. No rt h Dak ot a v. Heyd in ge r , 15 F. Su pp

. 3d 89 1, 91 9 (D. M in n. 2 01 4)

.

On ap pe al
, a th re e

-

ju d g e pa ne l of th is co ur t affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s in jun ct io n, bu t di vi de d ov er th e rat io na le

. Two jud ge s co nc lu de d th at th e Mi nn es ot a Act was pr eem

pt ed ( each rel y in g on a di ffer en t fed eral st at ut e), an d on e jud ge

co nc lu de d th at th e st at e st at ut e vi ol at ed th e do rm an t Co m m erce Cl au se

. Heyd in ge r , 82 5 F.3 d 91 2. Thi s co ur t th en rem an de d to th e di st ric t co ur t to de te rm in e whe th er th e pl ai nt iff s wer e en ti tl ed to att or ne y ’s fees

.

The Mi nn es ot a le gi sl at ur e rem ov ed th is la ng ua ge fro m th e Act la st y ear. Se e 3 Act o f May 30 , 20 17 , ch. 9 4, ar t. 1 0, § 24 , 20 17 Mi nn . Laws 7 46 , 89 7.

-3

-Th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e Nor th Dak ot a st at e pl ai nt iff s w e r e

“ pe rs on s” el ig ib le fo r an at to rn ey ’s fees award
, th at th e pr iv at e pl ai nt iff s co ul d

re co ver at to rn ey ’s fees reg ard le ss of th e st at e pl ai nt iff s’ el ig ib il it y , an d th at th ere w er e

no “ sp e c i a l c i r c um st an ces ” ba rri ng a fee award

. Heyd in ge r , 2 01 6 W L 5 66 19 26 , a t *6 -1 5. Th e co ur t t he n a ward ed $1 ,31 0,0 88 in att or ne y ’s fees an d c os ts

. Id

. at * 28

.

Mi nn es ot a ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th a t t h e pl ai nt iff s are

en ti tl ed to at to rn ey ’s fees an d, al te rn at iv el y , th e am ou nt of th e fee award

. Thi s co ur t

rev ie ws th e le ga l is su es de no vo an d th e am ou nt of th e award fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Sn id er v. Cit y o f Ca pe Gir ar de au , 75 2 F .3d 11 49 , 11 59 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

“ In th e Uni te d St at es , p a r t ie s are or di na ril y req ui red to be ar th ei r own
at to rn ey ’s fees —t he pr ev ai li ng pa rty is no t en ti tl ed to co ll ect fro m th e lo se r.”
Buc kh an no n Bd. & Ca re Home, In c. v. W. Va

. D e p ’ t o f Hea lt h & Huma n Res. , 5 32 U.S. 59 8, 60 2 (2 00 1)

. Und er th is “ Am eri can Ru le ,” fed eral co ur ts fo ll ow “ ‘a ge ne ral
pr act ic e of no t award in g f e e s t o a pr ev ai li ng pa rty ab se nt ex pl ic it st at ut or y

au th or it y .’ ” Id

. ( q u o t i n g K ey Tr on ic Co rp

. v. Uni te d St at es , 51 1 U.S. 80 9, 81 9 (1 99 4) ).

One so ur ce of st at ut or y au th or it y to award at to rn ey ’s fees is 42 U.S.C. § 19 88

. Tha t st at ut e pr ov id es : “ In an y act io n or pr oc eed i n g t o e n f or ce a pr ov is io n of [§ 19 83 ]
. . . , th e co ur t, in it s di sc ret io n, m ay al lo w t he pr ev ai li ng pa rty, oth er t ha n th e Uni te d St at es , a reas on ab le at to rn ey ’s fee as pa rt of th e co st s.” § 19 88 (b ). In th is

cas e, o n e c la im of th e pl ai nt iff s— th e do rm an t Co m

m erce Cl au se ch al le ng e—a ro se

un de r § 19 83
, Den ni s v. Hig gi ns , 49 8 U.S. 43 9, 45 1 (1 99 1)
, bu t th e two pr eem pt io n cl ai m s ba se d on th e Su pr em acy Cl au se di d no t. Se e Gol de n St at e T r a n si t Co rp

. v. Ci ty of Lo s Ang el es , 4 93 U.S. 10 3, 1 07 -0 8 (1 98 9) . Suc ces s o n a pre em pt io n c la im
, whe n bro ug ht by it se lf, t hu s ca nn ot ser ve as th e ba si s for a fee award un de r § 19 88

.

-4

-Bec au se a m ajor it y of th e th ree- jud ge pa ne l affi rm ed th e di st ric t co u rt’s in jun ct io n ba se d on no n- fee- ge ne rat in g pr eem pt io n cl ai m s, Mi nn es ot a co nt en ds th at
t h e pl ai nt iff

s are in el ig ib le fo r a fee award un de r § 19 88

. Gen eral ly sp ea k i n g , t o
qu al ify as a pr ev ai li ng pa rty un de r § 1 9 88
, a ci vi l rig ht s pl ai nt iff pr oc eed in g un de r § 19 83 “ m

us t ob ta in at le as t so m e rel ie f on th e m eri ts of hi s cl ai m .” Far ra r v. Hob by
, 50 6 U.S. 10 3, 11 1 (1 99 2)

. Bu t th ere is an ex cep ti on to th e ge ne ral ru le whe n a co ur t
ap pl ie s th e do ct rin e of co ns ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e an d ho ld s fo r th e pl ai nt iff on a no nfee- ge ne rat in g cl ai m

. Se e Mah er v. Gag ne , 44 8 U.S. 12 2, 13 2 & n.1 5 (1 98 0)

. Und er th at ex cep ti on , pl ai nt iff

s m ay st il l reco ve r fees if (1 ) pl ai nt iff s’ fee- ge ne rat in g cl ai m

was su bs ta nt ia l, (2 ) th e fee- ge ne rat in g an d no n- fee- ge ne rat in g c l a i ms aro se fro m a

co m m on nu cl eu s of op erat iv e fact
, an d (3 ) th e co ur t av oi de d res ol ut i on of th e feege ne rat in g cl ai m un de r th e do ct rin e o f c o n s ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e. Id

. ; Rog er s Grp

., In c. v. Ci ty of

Faye tt evi ll e , 68 3 F .3d 90 3, 9 11 -1 2 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ).

The pl ai nt iff

s he re sa ti sf

y th e th ree req ui rem en ts

. Fi rs t, th e pl ai nt iff s’ do rm an t Co m m erce Cl au se cl ai m was no t in su b s t a n t i a l. In th is co nt ex t, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s de fin ed “ su bs ta nt ia l” by refe ren ce to th e te st fo r as su m pt i o n o f su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ov er a co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m

. Mah er , 44 8 U.S. at 13 2 n

. 15

. Und er th at

an al y si s, “ [a] cl ai m is in su bs ta nt ia l on ly if ‘its un so un dn es s so cl earl y res ul ts fro m th e
pr ev io us de ci si on s of [th e Su pr em e Co ur t] as to f o r ecl os e th e su bjec t an d le av e no

r o o m f o r t he in fere nc e th at th e qu es ti on s so ug ht to be rai se d can be th e su bjec t o f

co nt ro ve rs y .’ ” Hag an s v. L a v i n e , 41 5 U.S. 52 8, 53 8 (1 97 4) (q uo ti ng Ex pa rt e Por es ky
, 29 0 U.S. 30
, 32 (1 93 3) ). In ot he r wor ds
, “ co ns ti tu ti on al in su bs ta nt ia li ty” fo r th is pu rp os e m ean s “ ob vi ou sl y fri vo lo us

. ” Id

. at 53 7. The pl ai nt iff

s’ feege ne rat in g do rm an t Co m

m erce Cl au se cl ai m pr ev ai le d wit h th e di st ric t co ur t an d wit h

on e jud ge of t hi s co ur t; th e cl ai m was “ su bs ta nt ia l” un de r th e g ov ern in g d efi ni ti on

.

Seco nd
, th e do rm an t Co m m erce Cl au se cl ai m an d pr eem pt io n cl ai ms aro se fro m a co m

m on nu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac t. T he cl ai m s all ch al le ng ed th e va li di ty of th e sa m e po rti on of th e Mi nn e s o t a Act, an d th e pl ai nt iff s wou ld “ or di na ril y be

-5

-ex pe ct ed to try th em al l in on e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in g.” Uni te d Min e W or ker s of Am. v. Gib bs , 38 3 U.S. 7 15 , 72 5 (1 96 6)

.

Thi rd
, it is fai r to sa y th at th e do ct rin e of co ns ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e le d th is co ur t
to av oi d res ol vi ng th e Co m m erce Cl au se cl ai m

. One jud ge fo un d th e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m m eri to rio us , Heyd in ge r , 82 5 F .3d at 9 22 (o pi ni on of Lo ke n, J .), an d a sec on d jud ge in vo ke d th e do ct rin e o f co ns ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e in co nc lu di ng th at th e pl ai nt iff s sh ou ld pr ev ai l on a pr eem pt io n th eo ry in st ead

. Se e id

. at 92 7 (Co ll ot on , J.,

co nc ur rin g in th e jud gm en t). Und er th os e ci rcu m st an ces , Mi nn es ot a do es no t di sp ut e th at th e fee- ge ne rat in g co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m was “ reas on ab ly rel at ed ” to th e pl ai nt iff s’ ul ti m at e su cces s. Se e Smi th v. Rob in so n , 46 8 U.S. 99 2, 10 07 (1 98 4) ; St

. Lo ui s Eff or t fo r AIDS v. Li nd le

y-Mye rs , 87 7 F.3 d 10 69
, 10 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Und er th e ex cep ti on

re c og ni zed in Mah er , th eref or e, th e pl ai nt iff

s m ay reco ve r at to rn ey ’s fees un de r § 19 88 ev en th ou gh th ey ul ti m at el y pr ev ai le d on a no n- fee

- g en erat in g pr eem pt io n cl ai m

.

Mi nn es ot a res po nd s t ha t ev en if c on st it ut io na l av oi da nc e wou ld all ow fo r an award of at to rn ey ’s fees
, th e Nor th Dak ot a st at e pl ai nt iff s are no t el ig ib le as

“ pe rs on s” un de r § 19 83 to reco ve r fees

. Bu t it is un ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s whe th er th e
st at e pl ai nt iff

s are elig ib le if t he pri va te pl ai nt iff s ar e en ti tl ed to th e fee award
, so it is ap pr op ria te to co ns id er t he pri va te pl ai nt iff s fi rs t.

Mi nn es ot a arg ue s th at ev en if th e pr iv at e pl ai nt iff s are el ig ib le to rece iv e fees

un de r § 19 88
, th ere are “ sp eci al ci rcu m st an ces ” th at m ak e a n award in ap pr op ria te

. An el ig ib le pa rty “ sh ou l d o r d i n a ril y reco ve r an at to rn ey ’s fee un le ss sp eci al ci rcu m st an ces wou ld ren de r su ch an award un jus t.” New man v. Pig

gi e Par k Ent er

s., In c. , 39 0 U.S. 40 0, 40 2 (1 96 8)

. Mi nn es ot a co nt en ds th at th e pr iv at e pl ai nt iff s sh ou ld

no t reco ve r fees be cau se th e St at e of Nor th Dak ot a bo re th e en ti re co st of li ti ga ti on ,
an d it wou ld be un

jus t t o award fees to pr iv at e pl ai nt iff s who were “ free rid in g” th ro ug h th e la wsu it

. The di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er, fo u n d th at “ ‘Plai nt iff s’ (p lu ral )

-6

-r et ai ne d [th e la w fir m ] to rep res en t th em , were is su ed in vo ic es , an d pa id th e

in vo ic es .” Heyd in ge r , 20 16 W L 56 61 92 6, at *7

.

Alt ho ug h th e pl ai nt iff

s co ul d ha ve m ad e a be tt er reco rd to si m pl ify th is is su e, th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at th e pr iv at e pl ai nt iff s rece iv ed rep res en ta ti on an d pa id

so m e of th e at to rn ey ’s fees is no t cl earl y erro ne ou s. The li m it ed in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by th e pl ai n t i f

f s su pp or ts a reas on ab le in fere nc e th at Nor th Dak ot a an d th e pr iv at e
p l a i nt iff s di vi de d li ti ga ti on ex pe ns es , an d th at ret ai ne d co un se l rep res en te d t h e in te res ts of

th e p riv at e p la in ti ffs as c it iz en s o f Nor th Dako ta . The p riv at e pl ai nt iff s al so pl ay ed a m at eri al ro le in th e li ti ga ti on , fo r it was th e i r p a r t i c i p at io n th at

es ta bl is he d st an di ng an d se rv ed as th e ba si s fo r pl ai nt iff s’ su cces s f

u l m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t. Id

. at * 6 n.7

. The as se rte d “ sp eci al cir cu m st an ce” i s t he refo re

no t pres en t, an d it is un ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s whe th er a pa rty m ay reco ve r fees whe n th e pa rty co nt rib ut es no th in g su bs ta nt ia l to th e l a w s u i t an d a co -p la in ti ff be ars th e

en ti re co st of li ti ga ti on

. Cf

. U.S. Dep ’t of

La bo r v. Rap id Rob er t’s In c. , 13 0 F.3 d 34 5, 34 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ); McLea n v. Ark. Bd. of Edu c. , 72 3 F.2 d 45
, 47 -4 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ).

Mi nn es ot a al so co m

pl ai ns th at a fee award is un jus t be cau se th e la wsu it ch al le ng ed an i nt erp ret at io n of th e Mi nn es ot a Act th at th e St at e ha d “ di sa vo wed .”
Bu t th is co ur t con cl ud ed th at Mi nn es ot a’s pr op os ed in te rp ret at io n of th e Act wou ld

no t re so lv e th e di sp ut e, ei th er beca us e it was no t a p la us ib le li m it in g i nt erp ret at io n, Heyd in ge r , 82 5 F.3 d at 92 0- 21 (o pi ni on of Lok en , J.), or be cau se ev en Mi nn es ot a’s

“ na rro wer ” i n t erp ret at io n fai le d to av oi d pr eem pt io n. Id

. at 92 7- 28 (Co ll ot on , J.,

co nc ur rin g in th e jud gm en t). Mi nn es ot a al so as se rts th at a fee award is in ap pr op ria te in wha t is es se nt ia ll y a la wsu it be twee n two St at es

. W ha te ve r th e m eri t of th at
po si ti on , th e in vo lv em en t of th e pr iv at e pl ai nt iff s in th is c a se de feat s th e pr em is e. And be cau se th e pr iv at e pl ai nt iff s are en ti t l ed to a fee award
, it is un ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s wh et he r th e st at e p la in ti ffs are el ig ib le as “ pe rs on s” un de r § 1 98 3.

-7

-The am ou nt of th e d i s t r i c t co ur t’s fee award was no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n.

“Th e s ta rti ng po in t in de te rm in in g an at to rn ey s’ fee award un de r § 19 88 is th e lo de st ar, whi ch is cal cu la te d by m ul ti pl y in g th e nu m

be r of hour s re as ona

bly ex pe nd ed b y r e a s o n a bl e ho ur ly rat es .” Sn id er , 75 2 F.3 d at 11 59

. The nu m be r of ho ur s

reas on ab ly ex pe nd ed do es no t in cl ud e “ ho ur s th at are ex ces si ve , red un d a n t , or
ot he rwis e u nn eces sa ry .” Hen sl ey v. Ecke rh ar t , 46 1 U.S. 4 24 , 43 4 (1 98 3)

.

The di st ric t co ur t su ffi ci e nt ly sc ru ti ni zed pl ai nt iff s’ fee req ue st to de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te nu m

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

. The co ur t se t fo rth de ta il ed

an al y si s th at ad dr es se d each of Mi nn es ot a ’s ob jecti on s, ag reei ng wit h so m e an d di sa gr eei ng wit h ot he rs

. The di st ric t co ur t’s it em iz ed de ci s i o n s were no t

un reas on ab le

. The co ur t al so di d no t a b u s e i t s d is cret io n by refu si ng to or de r th e pl ai nt iff s to pr od uc e th ei r en ga ge m en t ag reem en t, be cau se th e rel ev an t te rm s an d fact s of pa y m en t were d e s c r i b ed ad eq ua te ly in th e pl ai nt iff s’ affi da vi ts

. Se e Heyd in ge r , 20 16 W L 56 61 92 6, at *1 7 n.1 4. Fi na ll y , th e di st r i ct co ur t pe rm is si bl y award ed fees fo r ho ur s sp e n t on th e un res ol ve d do rm an t Co m m erce Cl au se cl ai m , be cau se th at cl ai m was no t in su bs ta nt ia l an d was reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e pr eem pt io n cl ai m on whi ch th e p la in ti ffs ul ti m at el y pre va il ed

.

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur s i n t he res ul t.

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

-8

-