Alvarez v. The City of New York
1:11-cv-05464
S.D.N.Y.Dec 5, 2017Background
- Alvarez was shot more than twenty times by NYPD officers after an altercation; he sued under § 1983 for excessive force and false arrest.
- A jury found three officers (Cozart, Kerrigan, Tedeschi) liable on excessive-force claims but awarded Alvarez only $1 in nominal damages and no punitive damages.
- Alvarez moved for a new trial on damages or, alternatively, for attorney’s fees; the court denied a new trial but initially awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
- Defendants moved for reconsideration of the fee award; the court reviewed Second Circuit precedent on fee awards when plaintiffs recover only nominal damages.
- On reconsideration, the court concluded that, under Second Circuit law, awarding fees in nominal-damages cases is rare and typically requires a groundbreaking legal development; Alvarez’s case applied settled law to its facts and did not create a new rule.
- The court denied Alvarez’s request for attorney’s fees but left its prior award of non-attorney costs intact and directed the parties to confer on allocation of costs pre- and post-Rule 68 offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alvarez is entitled to attorney’s fees under § 1988 after recovering only nominal damages ($1) | Fees are warranted because the case involved significant legal issues (police use of deadly force) and served public purposes | Under Second Circuit precedent, fees in nominal-damages cases are rare and require a groundbreaking new rule of liability; Alvarez did not establish that | Denied: No attorney’s fees. Applying Pino and McGrath, the court found no new rule of law and emphasized degree of success as dispositive |
| Whether costs (other than attorney’s fees) should be awarded | Costs should be allowed to the prevailing party as permitted by Rule 54(d)(1) | Defendants sought reconsideration of costs but did not brief the issue | Granted in part for reconsideration: costs award stands. Court declined to reconsider prior award of pre-Rule 68 offer costs and left cost allocation for the parties to resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (nominal-damages plaintiff can be a prevailing party but fee awards require special consideration)
- Pino v. Locascio, 101 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 1996) (fee awards for nominal-damages plaintiffs are rare; fees appropriate where litigation produced a new rule of liability serving significant public purpose)
- McGrath v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 409 F.3d 513 (2d Cir. 2005) (clarifies that a ground-breaking legal conclusion is necessary to justify fees when only nominal damages are recovered)
- Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1994) (example of a nominal-damages case where fees were upheld because litigation established a new rule of liability)