Opinion ID: 2514846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Braun Is Entitled to Attorney's Fees and Costs for His Challenge of the 2002 Reapportionment Plan Under the Catalyst Theory.

Text: In Braun I, Braun challenged the constitutionality of the 2002 reapportionment plan. The case was conditionally resolved through a settlement agreement negotiated by the parties in May 2004. [18] The settlement agreement provided that Denali Borough voters would be presented with two presumptively constitutional apportionment plans [19] one submitted by the Borough, the other submitted by a citizenin the next election. Braun submitted the citizen-generated reapportionment plan, which was presented to Denali Borough voters alongside the Borough's plan in the following election. The voters opted for the Borough's plan rather than Braun's. Braun moved for attorney's fees in Braun I on March 21, 2005. The Borough opposed. Judge Olsen denied the motion as premature but later ruled on the issue in May 2006, declining to award Braun attorney's fees because [Braun's] challenge to the 2002 apportionment scheme ha[d] not been successful and because [t]he small modification in the 2004 scheme[ [20] ] would not change this conclusion. Braun argues that his lawsuit led the Borough to withdraw the 2002 plan, which had a variance over the 10% prima facie constitutional limit, and to develop the 2004 plan that was prima facie constitutional. He contends that this fact alone makes him the prevailing party. He incorporates the arguments made in his March 2005 motion for attorney's fees, which were grounded in the catalyst theory. We have held that the prevailing party is the one who succeeds on the main issue. [21] A party need not prevail on every issue to enjoy prevailing party status, [22] nor need he achieve formal judicial relief. [23] Under the catalyst theory, a plaintiff who settles enjoys prevailing party status if he proves: (1) that the goal of his litigation was achieved, meaning that he succeeded on a significant issue and achieved a benefit for which the suit was brought, and (2) that his lawsuit was a catalyst in motivating the defendant to settle. [24] Once the plaintiff makes this prima facie case, he is entitled to Rule 82(b)(2) attorney's fees unless the defendant proves that his lawsuit lacked colorable merit. [25] Here, both prongs of the test have been fulfilled. The first question is whether motivating the Borough to set aside the 2002 plan and to develop a new one constitutes success for Braun on the main issue of his casechallenging the constitutionality of the 2002 reapportionment plan. Braun argues that the settlement agreement, particularly the replacement of an over-10% variance plan with a prima facie constitutional, sub-10% variance plan, proves that his suit was a success. Conversely, the Borough maintains that its participation in the settlement agreement does not constitute an admission that the 2002 plan was unconstitutional, but rather evidences a practical desire to avoid litigation. But the Borough itself has stated that the settlement agreement gave [Braun] nearly everything he asked for in his complaint. Braun challenged the constitutionality of the 2002 reapportionment plan, and as a result of his suit, the Borough withdrew that plan and replaced it with a prima facie constitutional one. As to the second prong, the Borough developed the 2004 reapportionment plan and presented it to the voters in furtherance of its settlement agreement with Braun. Braun is entitled to appropriate attorney's fees and costs under the catalyst theory. [26]