Opinion ID: 48300
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Caselaw on Preliminary Injunctions

Text: 20 Since Buckhannon, this circuit has not addressed under what circumstances, if any, a preliminary injunction may support an award of attorney's fees under § 1988. A number of other circuits have taken on this question, however, with varying analyses. 21 Several circuits have declared that a preliminary injunction that merely preserves the status quo ante will not create a prevailing party. The Eleventh Circuit has stated that a preliminary injunction on the merits, as opposed to a merely temporary order which decides no substantive issues but merely maintains the status quo, entitles one to prevailing party status and an award of attorney's fees. Taylor v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 810 F.2d 1551, 1558 (11th Cir.1987). An exception exists where a court later determines that the preliminary injunction that would otherwise support prevailing party status was granted by the district court through a mistake in law. Id. 2 Similarly, the Eighth Circuit has stated that a preliminary injunction granting temporary relief that merely maintains the status quo does not confer prevailing party status. N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Jackson, 433 F.3d 1083, 1086 (8th Cir.2006). The court did allow that some preliminary injunctions are sufficiently akin to final relief on the merits to confer prevailing party status. Id. An example of the latter is where the preliminary injunction alters the course of a pending administrative proceeding and the party's claim for a permanent injunction is rendered moot by the impact of the preliminary injunction. Id. 22 Like the Eighth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit has held that a preliminary injunction may create prevailing party status where the case is mooted after the preliminary injunction is granted. The Seventh Circuit has interpreted the Supreme Court's precedent on fee awards to hold that once a plaintiff obtains substantive relief that is not defeasible by further proceedings, he can seek interim fees and the district court has the power to award them. Dupuy v. Samuels, 423 F.3d 714, 719 (7th Cir.2005). The Seventh Circuit stated that while there is no hard and fast rule that a preliminary injunction can never be an adequate predicate for an attorney's fees award, an injunction that merely constrains the defendants' conduct until it is reversed cannot support a fee award. Id. at 723; Palmer v. City of Chi., 806 F.2d 1316, 1321-22 (7th Cir.1986). Attorney's fees would be available, however, where the plaintiffs had obtained a preliminary injunction, and the case was mooted before they sought attorneys' fees. Dupuy, 423 F.3d at 723. 23 Using a slightly different analysis, the Sixth Circuit has held that [a] preliminary injunction can suffice to create prevailing party status. Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 191 Fed.Appx. 397, 399 (6th Cir.2006). However, there is only prevailing party status if the injunction represents `an unambiguous indication of probable success on the merits, and not merely a maintenance of the status quo ordered because the balance of the equities greatly favors the plaintiff.' Dubuc v. Green Oak Twp., 312 F.3d 736, 753 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting Webster v. Sowders, 846 F.2d 1032, 1036 (6th Cir.1988)). The D.C. Circuit has concluded that  Buckhannon surely does not endorse a per se rule that a preliminary injunction can never transform a party in whose favor the injunction is issued into a `prevailing party'.... Select Milk Producers, Inc. v. Johanns, 400 F.3d 939, 945 (D.C.Cir.2005). The D.C. Circuit determined that the plaintiff who was granted a preliminary injunction qualified as a prevailing party where the plaintiff obtained substantial relief and the defendant declined to appeal the injunction. Id. at 947-50. While citing a number of mootness cases, the D.C. Circuit suggested that there are other situations in which a preliminary injunction may create a prevailing party. Id. 24 The Ninth Circuit has also taken a relatively generous approach, at least in principle, stating that a preliminary injunction issued by a judge carries all the `judicial imprimatur' necessary to satisfy Buckhannon.  Watson v. County of Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2002). Like several other circuits, the Ninth Circuit has allowed attorney's fees in cases where a party obtained a preliminary injunction and then the case was subsequently mooted. Id.; Williams v. Alioto, 625 F.2d 845, 847 (9th Cir.1980). The Ninth Circuit did note, however, that 25 there will be occasions when the plaintiff scores an early victory by securing a preliminary injunction, then loses on the merits as the case plays out and judgment is entered against him — a case of winning the battle but losing the war. The plaintiff would not be a prevailing party in that circumstance. 26 Watson, 300 F.3d at 1096. 27 By contrast, the Fourth Circuit has expressed strong skepticism that a preliminary injunction could ever serve as the basis for prevailing party status. The court explained that [w]hile granting such an injunction does involve an inquiry into the merits of the party's claim . . . and is, like any court order, `enforceable,' the merits inquiry in the preliminary injunction context is necessarily abbreviated. Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.3d 268, 276 (4th Cir.2002). The court declared that 28 [t]he interplay of [ ] equitable and legal considerations and the less stringent assessment of the merits of claims that are part of the preliminary injunction context belie the assertion that the district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction was an enforceable judgment on the merits or something akin to one for prevailing party purposes. 29 Id. at 277 (citing Buckhannon, 121 S.Ct. at 1840.)