Opinion ID: 70439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Appellees are prevailing parties

Text: We address first whether Appellees are prevailing parties for purposes of § 1988 and Rule 54. See Dean v. Riser. [8] The record shows that the court granted Appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Fox's § 1983 claims with prejudice after Fox conceded that he had failed to state a federal claim. All other things being equal, this makes Appellees prevailing parties. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res. ; [9] Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp., U.S.A. ; [10] Anthony v. Marion County Gen. Hosp. [11] However, Fox argues that Appellees are not prevailing parties because Fox voluntarily dismissed his federal claims. Fox points to our decision in Dean, where we held that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses his claims in a § 1983 action, the defendant is not a prevailing party for attorneys' fees purposes unless the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff withdrew to avoid a disfavorable judgment on the merits. [12] Fox did not file a motion to voluntarily dismiss his federal claims before defendants responded. [13] Rather, Fox allowed the case to proceed for more than eighteen months in federal court and through considerable discovery before he was challenged on the legal sufficiency of his federal claims. At that point, Fox was forced to concede their lack of legal merit and shifted focus to his state claims. Therefore, any decision Fox made to abandon his federal claims did not merely indicate[] his preferred forum, or a change in the law or decisive facts. [14] Rather, it represented recognition that Fox's federal claims should never have been brought. Moreover, without decisive action by Appellees, Fox's baseless federal claims would have proceeded to trial. He chose to dismiss the federal claims because he could manufacture no argument to support them when he was challenged. To deny fees under these circumstances would defeat the purpose of ever recognizing defendants as prevailing parties, which is to `protect defendants from burdensome litigation having no legal or factual basis.' [15] We hold, therefore, that Appellees are prevailing parties for purposes of Rule 54 and § 1988.