Opinion ID: 70439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether Appellees must prevail over the entire case to be awarded fees

Text: In the alternative, Fox argues that even if his federal claims are meritless, Appellees are not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs because Appellees did not prevail over the entire action. Specifically, Fox points to the fact that the district court remanded Fox's state claims that were based on the same alleged facts. When speaking of whether a defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees, the Supreme Court describes a suit, [20] an action, [21] and both a claim and an action [22] as the proper quanta for determining frivolity, with little guidance as to which is the final determinant. There also appears to be no Fifth Circuit precedent on whether a defendant must prevail over an entire suit before that defendant may seek attorneys' fees or whether success on an individual claim is sufficient. Indeed, other circuits appear to be split on the issue. [23] Having reviewed the other circuits' holdings, we agree with the majority of circuits that a defendant does not have to prevail over an entire suit in order to recover attorneys' fees for frivolous § 1983 claims. We agree with the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits that it would `undermine the intent of Congress to allow plaintiffs to prosecute frivolous claims without consequences merely because those claims were joined' with additional non-frivolous claims. [24] Such a rule would also make a defendant's entitlement to attorneys' fees depend not upon the district court's review of the merits of a plaintiff's § 1983 claims, but upon how a plaintiff chose to draft his complaint. [25] However, even though a defendant need not prevail on all claims in a suit to be entitled to attorneys' fees, a defendant is only entitled to attorneys' fees for work which can be distinctly traced to a plaintiff's frivolous claims. [26] Inasmuch as a non-frivolous claim in the same suit can be the basis for the work of a defendant's attorney, the court must consider the interrelated nature of the frivolous and nonfrivolous claims to determine the appropriate fee. [27] We recognize that [t]here is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations, and much should be left to the district court's equitable discretion. [28] Nevertheless, we are confident that the district court will be able properly to weigh and assess the amount of attorney's fees attributable exclusively to [a plaintiff's] frivolous ... claim[s]. [29] In its order awarding Appellees attorneys' fees, the district court noted that the focus of both plaintiff and defendants was plaintiff's § 1983 claim. The court also noted in the second order that defendant's [sic] request for attorney's fees relates only to proceedings before this court. Finally, the court noted that Defendant's [sic] do not appear to request attorney's fees related to the defense of the state law claims remanded for decision to the Louisiana state court. Because the district court specifically restricted its award of attorneys' fees to the proceedings before it, and because the court found that Appellees did not seek attorneys' fees for the defense of the state law claims, we do not find its award of attorneys' fees an abuse of discretion.