Opinion ID: 3052620
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defense of the unconstitutional state laws

Text: [3] Costco’s first argument is unpersuasive because Zipes uses the term “innocent” to refer simply to an intervenor who has not been found liable for engaging in unlawful activity. See 491 U.S. at 762-63. The facts of that case make clear that an intervenor does not become blameworthy merely by actively litigating an issue and thereby making it more difficult for an opposing party to prevail: The intervenor in Zipes had singlehandedly challenged the flight attendants’ settlement agreement in the district court and on appeal before the Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court. 491 U.S. at 757. This litigation lasted for nearly three years and cost the flight attenCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. v. HOEN 10765 dants almost $200,000 in attorney’s fees, id. at 770-71 (Marshall, J., dissenting), but Zipes still found the intervenor “innocent” because the intervenor was not found to have violated Title VII, id. at 766. WBWWA is similarly “innocent” insofar as neither the district court nor this court in Maleng found WBWWA liable with respect to Costco’s § 1983 claim. See Maleng, 514 F.3d at 923 n.5; see also Reed, 388 F.3d at 1288 (holding that a losing intervenor was not liable for fees under § 1988(b) even though “the [intervenor’s] arguments doubtless required the plaintiffs’ lawyers to spend additional time” litigating the case).