Court Opinion

ID: 9702955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:34:18.880884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:44.157074
License: Public Domain

HATCHETT, Chief Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
The plaintiffs in this action seek attorney’s fees and costs against the defendants, under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1988. To warrant an award of attorney’s fees and costs, the plaintiffs must establish that they are the “prevailing parties.” The majority of this three-judge court has found that plaintiffs have met the prevailing party standard; therefore, the majority’s finding dictates the ruling — the plaintiffs are prevailing parties.
I dissent, however, from the majority’s .ruling on the application of the Northern District of Florida’s Local Rule 54.1, which governs motions for attorney’s fees because the plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with the filing requirements for attorney’s fees under Local Rule 54.1. Noncompliance with Local Rule 54.1 mandates a disallowance of attorney’s fees for the “omitted period.” N.D.Fla.Loc.R. 54.1(B). Instead of following the plain language of Local Rule 54.1, the majority imposes a lesser sanction, a twenty-*1129five percent reduction of the plaintiffs’ attorney fee request. Because strict obedience to Local Rule 54.1 is of importance in the troublesome area of attorney’s fees, I dissent from this portion of the majority opinion. The majority’s reasons for minimizing the sanction against the plaintiffs for noncompliance with Local Rule 54.1 are not convincing.
Accordingly, because the majority’s vote establishes the law of the ease, the prevailing party finding is binding on me. Nevertheless, I dissent from the ruling regarding sanctions.