Opinion ID: 1364730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: failure to award ashnha its full attorney's fees

Text: The standard of review applicable to the trial court's award of attorney's fees is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Thorstenson v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 780 P.2d 371, 376 (Alaska 1989); Cooper v. Carlson, 511 P.2d 1305, 1309 (Alaska 1973). Abuse of discretion will be found where the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Pugil v. Cogar, 811 P.2d 1062, 1065 n. 5 (Alaska 1991). ASHNHA argues that the court erred in applying the partial award provisions of Alaska Civil Rule 82, rather than awarding the full amount of attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1988). ASHNHA asserts that § 1988 requires a trial court to award the full amount of a successful plaintiff's fees. In response, the State argues that § 1988 does not entitle a successful plaintiff to full attorney's fees, but only to a reasonable fee determined in the court's discretion. The State contends that the court properly exercised its discretion under § 1988 and under Alaska Rule 82 in awarding ASHNHA 40% of its total fees. The State is correct that § 1988 does not guarantee an award of full attorney's fees. Section 1988 provides that the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (1988) (emphasis added); see also Ferdinand v. Fairbanks, 599 P.2d 122, 126 n. 12 (Alaska 1979) (We cannot, however, agree with appellants that [§ 1988] requires an award of the full amount of fees claimed, but only those fees that are reasonable.). However, we have noted that [f]ull attorney's fees are the norm under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Moseley v. Beirne, 626 P.2d 580, 581 (Alaska 1981). In addition, this court has stated [w]hile the award of attorney's fees under both the Alaska Rule [82] and the federal statute [§ 1988] remains within the trial court's discretion, that discretion is narrowly limited when attorney's fees are awarded pursuant to the federal act, and will be reviewed on appeal in light of federal rather than Alaska law. Ferdinand, 599 P.2d at 125. Since the trial court's summary judgment decision was based on federal law, the award of attorney's fees should have been made pursuant to § 1988. Although the trial court cited both § 1988 and Alaska Rule 82 in its order awarding 40% of ASHNHA's actual costs, it did not discuss its reasons for refusing to award 100% of ASHNHA's fees. The United States Supreme Court has held that the fee amount must be determined on the facts of each case, and has noted that Congress has identified twelve factors appropriate for such a determination. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-30, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937-38, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (the House Report ... refers to 12 factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., [488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974)]). The order of the superior court does not indicate that it looked to these factors in setting the award. In fact, the order provides no explanation as to how or why the court arrived at the 40% figure. Although the court has discretion in determining the amount of the fee award, [i]t remains important, however, for the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941. The court's failure to comply with federal law in setting the fee award constitutes an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the case is remanded for a redetermination of ASHNHA's reasonable fees under § 1988.