Andrew Richardson v. City of Chicago
740 F.3d 1099
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Off-duty Chicago police officer Darrin Macon shot at Andrew Richardson after an argument; Richardson was arrested based on Macon’s report but charges were later dismissed.
- Richardson sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law against Chicago, Macon, arresting officers, and others, asserting 39 claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Chicago under Monell and found Chicago’s policies not constitutionally deficient; all defendants except Macon prevailed at trial.
- A jury found for Richardson on one federal claim related to the shooting, awarding $1 nominal and $3,000 punitive damages; Richardson lost on 38 other claims.
- Richardson sought $675,000+ in attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988; the district court awarded about $123,165—imposing the fee award on Macon personally and ordering Richardson to reimburse Chicago’s costs under Rule 54(d).
- Richardson appealed the fee award and allocation; the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Entitlement to §1988 fees where recovery was nominal plus punitive | Richardson argued punitive damages suffice to be a prevailing party entitled to fees | Defendants contended limited recovery does not justify substantial fees | Court: Punitive award made plaintiff a prevailing party but limited success justifies reduced fees under Farrar and Hensley |
| 2. Whether fees should be assessed against Chicago or Macon | Richardson sought to make Chicago liable for fees as judgment debtor | Chicago argued its only obligation under state law is to indemnify Macon for the nominal $1, not §1988 fees | Court: §1988 does not entitle Richardson to fees from Chicago; indemnification obligations under state law do not convert Chicago into a §1988 fee debtor |
| 3. Validity of across-the-board percentage reduction of lodestar when time records fail to allocate winning vs losing work | Richardson argued percentage cuts are impermissible; fee must be based on compensable hours if identifiable | Defendants argued district court may reduce lodestar when records prevent allocation and success was limited | Court: District court may apply a reasonable across-the-board reduction to reflect limited success when precise allocation is infeasible (Hensley controls) |
| 4. Entitlement to costs under Rule 54(d) | Richardson claimed moral/state-actor verdict should preclude costs award to Chicago | Chicago argued it prevailed on Monell and state-law claims and is entitled to costs | Court: Chicago is prevailing party for costs; Richardson must pay Chicago’s costs under Rule 54(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under §1983 requires a constitutional policy or custom)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (minimal or nominal recovery may limit fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method and reductions for limited success; courts may reduce award when success is partial)
- Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1986) (district courts may not routinely limit §1988 fees to a fixed percentage of recovery)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (allowing upward adjustments to lodestar for exceptional work)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (fee/cost awards depend on concrete judicial relief, not moral victories)
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1987) (fee awards should reflect market rates for time reasonably devoted to successful litigation)
- Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2011) (appellate deferential standard for fee reductions)
- Estate of Enoch v. Tienor, 570 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2009) (district courts should not arbitrarily slash fee awards when recovery is substantial in context)
- Cooke v. Stefani Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 250 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 2001) (upholding 50% across-the-board reduction as within district court discretion)
- Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 1999) (affirming across-the-board reductions for limited success)