Opinion ID: 1039748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: As an initial matter, we address the appropriate standard of review. The parties put forth competing views of our standard of review, each choosing a standard favorable to their arguments. DocMagic seeks de novo review, while Lenders One prefers an abuse-of-discretion standard. Both parties misstate aspects of the applicable standard, which involves both factual and legal determinations by the district court. Our cases are fairly clear on this issue. As we have previously stated: [W]e review de novo the legal question of whether a litigant is a prevailing party. See Pottgen v. Missouri State High Sch. Activities Ass'n, 103 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 1997); St. Louis Fire Fighters Ass'n v. St. Louis, 96 F.3d 323, 330 (8th Cir. 1996). Accord Church of Scientology v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1509, 1512–13 (11th Cir.1993) (We review the factual findings underlying a district court's determination regarding 'prevailing party' status for clear error . . . . Whether the facts as found suffice to render the plaintiff a 'prevailing party' is a legal question reviewed de novo.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 807, 115 S. Ct. 54, 130 L. Ed. 2d 13 (1994). In Association for Retarded Citizens v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 993, 117 S. Ct. 482, 136 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1996), we stated that we reviewed fee awards for an abuse of discretion, or an error in implementing the governing legal standards. Id. at 1010 (quotation omitted). The Supreme Court has defined and applied the test for -6- prevailing party status in unmistakably legal terms: [A] plaintiff 'prevails' when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111–12, 113 S. Ct. 566, 573, 121 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1992). Thus, while abuse of discretion governs in reviewing fee awards, the question of prevailing party status, a statutory term, presents a legal issue for decision, which we review de novo. Jenkins by Jenkins v. State of Mo., 127 F.3d 709, 713 (8th Cir. 1997). In sum, we review de novo the threshold and, in this case, decisive legal question of which litigant is the prevailing party. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's actual award of fees and costs. Although Jenkins dealt with a prevailing party under a statutory fee allocation scheme, unless otherwise agreed, the same standard would apply for a prevailing-party determination in a contractual context.