Barbour v. City of White Plains
788 F. Supp. 2d 216
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Barbour, Gonzalez, and Massey filed suit under §1983 after their 2004 arrest following a 2004 incident; two were acquitted, one dismissed mid-trial in the related criminal cases.
- Defendants offered Rule 68 judgments of $10,000 per Plaintiff for settlement of all claims, with costs to be determined by the Court; judgments entered for $10,000 plus costs, including fees.
- Plaintiffs filed fee petition seeking $290,997.94 in fees and costs, arguing fees are recoverable as prevailing party costs under §1988 despite the Rule 68 offers.
- Defendants opposed, arguing the Rule 68 offer should include fees or that Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties, and asserting the fee request is excessive.
- Court addresses: (a) whether Rule 68 offers include fees absent explicit inclusion, (b) whether Plaintiffs are prevailing parties, (c) reasonableness of fees, (d) hourly rates, (e) proportionality and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 68 offers included attorneys' fees. | Offer did not specify costs/fees; fees recoverable. | Offer intended to include costs/fees in $10,000. | Fees recoverable; offer not presumed inclusive of fees. |
| Whether Plaintiffs are prevailing parties. | Rule 68 judgments provide relief and constitute prevailing status. | Dismissing some claims undermines prevailing status. | Plaintiffs prevailing parties; settlement constitutes relief. |
| Whether fees are reasonable under lodestar analysis. | Fees reasonable given risks and time; substantial preparation. | Fees inflated and disproportionate to recovery. | Fees reasonable; lodestar approach applied. |
| Whether hourly rates and paralegal costs are appropriate. | Rates within customary ranges for civil rights practice. | Rates may be high; time entries scrutinized. | Rates reasonable; paralegal costs awarded. |
| Proportionality of fees to $10,000 recoveries. | Fee-shifting statutes not tied to amount recovered. | Proportionality should limit fees to recovery. | Fees awarded despite larger request; proportionality not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (Rule 68 requires explicit inclusion of costs unless stated otherwise)
- Sas v. Trintex, 709 F. Supp. 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (If offer states costs included, no further fees; silence favors separate fee award)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (Prevailing party status may be obtained through settlement or judgment)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) ( lodestar approach for reasonable fee calculation)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (lodestar yields presumptively reasonable fee in Second Circuit)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (reaffirms usefulness of lodestar in §1988 cases)
- Miller v. City of New York?, 477 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1986) (City of Riverside — rejection of fee-shifting arguments tied to settlement)
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (Rule 68 and costs entail fees unless explicitly excluded)