ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District
86 F. Supp. 3d 857
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Alarm Companies sought attorney’s fees and costs under §1988 and the Clayton Act after winning a permanent injunction prohibiting District from enforcing its Illinois Act ordinance.
- The District and Chicago Metro proposed to moot the case by tendering damages, which Alarm Companies argued does not defeat prevailing-party status for fee-shifting purposes.
- This court held Alarm Companies prevail under §1988 and §26, and that District and Chicago Metro are liable for fees, though apportioned between them.
- The court computed a lodestar, applied reasonableness adjustments, and reduced the award by 10% for Alarm Companies’ conduct in the post-ADT II phase.
- An 80/20 allocation of liability was adopted, with District liable for 80% and Chicago Metro 20% of the total fee award of $2,130,220.95.
- The court permitted recovery of reasonable costs and adjusted “fees on fees” downward by 50% due to post-judgment fee litigation filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alarm is entitled to fees under §1988 | Alarm prevailed on injunctive relief, sustaining constitutional and antitrust claims. | Fees require a narrow prevailing-theory approach or rely on Illinois Act success only. | Alarm Companies are entitled to fees under §1988. |
| Whether Alarm is entitled to fees under §26 (substantial prevail) | Alarm prevailed on the overall action and substantially won injunctive relief. | If a party only partially prevailed, fees should be limited. | Alarm Companies are entitled to fees under §26. |
| Whether District’s immunity under §15 defeats fee liability | No immunity; injury-supported fee recovery applies if injury occurred. | District cannot be liable for §15 fees due to immunity. | §15 does not govern District’s liability; alarm fees remain under §1988 and §26; District not liable under §15. |
| How to apportion fee liability between District and Chicago Metro | Joint and several liability is appropriate given common outcome. | Apportionment is appropriate given differing levels of success against each defendant. | Apportion liability severally: District 80%, Chicago Metro 20%. |
| Reasonableness and adjustments (lodestar, hours, and “fees on fees”) | Full reasonable lodestar should be awarded; hours and fees on fees are justified. | Challenge to hours and post-ADT II fees; deflation is warranted. | Total award $2,130,220.95; 10% overall reduction; fees on fees reduced by 50%; costs granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (prevailing party requires judicial alteration of the legal relationship)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (reasonableness of fee and not reducing for unsuccessful claims)
- Wisconsin Hosp. Ass’n v. Reivitz, 820 F.2d 863 (7th Cir. 1987) (fees may be awarded where constitutional grounds are closely related to non-constitutional grounds)
- Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (close relation of constitutional and nonconstitutional grounds for fee award)
- Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014) (presumptive entitlement to a full fee award when excellent results obtained)
- Richardson v. City of Chicago, 740 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2014) (reasonableness and allocation principles in fee disputes)
- Zessar v. Keith, 536 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (fee-shifting analysis in complex civil rights actions)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (interpretation of )