Opinion ID: 4027535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jane Roe Plaintiffs

Text: We now turn to Appellants’ other contentions. Appellants argue that they are entitled to the full fees for representing the Jane Roe Plaintiffs. We disagree. The Jane Roe Plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed before the district court entered the consent decree, and they thus received no monetary relief and were not considered prevailing parties to the action. Although neither party disputes that Appellants have standing to assert facial constitutional challenges regarding the City’s zoning ordinances on their employees’ behalf, see Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1011 (9th Cir. 2001), or that they have standing to assert declaratory relief claims on behalf of their employees, adding the employees to the litigation as Jane Roe Plaintiffs should not have been so onerous to warrant the award of the entirety of Appellants’ requested fees attributable to that circumstance.