Opinion ID: 785066
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of fees to defendants' counsel

Text: 74 Appellants claim that they were entitled to fees under WARN, since defendants prevailed on claims of two individual plaintiffs and on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. These victories do not, however, make appellants the prevailing party: 75 Under the test articulated in Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111-12, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992), 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. The Court explained that a material alteration of the legal relationship occurs [when] the plaintiff becomes entitled to enforce a judgment, consent decree, or settlement against the defendant. Id. at 113, 113 S.Ct. 566. In these situations, the legal relationship is altered because the plaintiff can force the defendant to do something he other-wise would not have to do. 76 Fischer v. SJB P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir.2000) (alteration in original). As appellees obtained a $60,345.45 judgment against appellants, appellees clearly prevailed under this definition. The attorney's fees standards from cases such as Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978), Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980), and Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), provide that prevailing defendants are awarded attorney's fees only when the plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. See, e.g., Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 421, 98 S.Ct. 694. 77