Opinion ID: 74196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Viability of the catalyst test

Text: We have long held that a plaintiff who did not receive a formal judgment in its favor was a “prevailing party” if it met the elements of the catalyst test. See, e.g., Ketterle v. B.P. Oil, Inc., 909 F.2d 425, 429-30 (11th Cir. 1990)4; Dunn, 889 F.2d at 1013-15; Royal Crown Cola Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 887 F.2d 1480, 1486 3 Neither the parties nor the district court address this question, though they do cite to the 1993 opinion in Scientology II, which implicitly held that the catalyst test survived Farrar. 2 F.3d at 1513-14. We note that our holding today is consistent with the application found in Scientology