Opinion ID: 197547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Settlement Prospects.

Text: B. Settlement Prospects. In other instances, inquiry into the course of settlement negotiations may yield information that is useful in determining fees. See Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in a civil rights context). In the case at bar, however, the defendant did not invoke Rule 68 and, in any event, the judgment that the plaintiff obtained more than trebled the highest settlement offer available to her. This success validates the appellant's rejection of the tendered settlement and immunizes her from detrimental consequences based upon that rejection. See Corder v. Gates, 947 F.2d 374, 380-81 (9th Cir. 1991). Policy considerations militate strongly against relaxing this rule. Permitting a district court to reduce a fee award for failure to settle when the eventual judgment exceeds the best settlement offer previously made by the losing party would put too large a club in the district court's hands. In the bargain, endorsing that praxis would create inordinate pressure on plaintiffs to accept low settlement offers. This result would inhibit the bringing of civil rights actions, and, in the end, frustrate Congress's manifest intention that the Fees Act facilitate the prosecution of private actions aimed at deterring civil rights abuses. See Rivera, 477 U.S. at 574-75. We therefore hold that it is a mistake of law to reduce an award of attorneys' fees in a civil rights case in response to a plaintiff's rejection of a defendant's settlement offer when the 16 subsequent judgment exceeds that offer.8