Barbour v. City of White Plains, 700 F.3d 631

Plaintiffs Barbour, Gonzalez, and Massey alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 arising from a 2004 arrest by White Plains officers.
Thirteen days before trial, defendants offered Rule 68 judgments of $10,000 per plaintiff, total $30,000, to settle all claims.
Plaintiffs accepted the Rule 68 offers; district court entered judgment and reserved fees and costs for later determination.
Plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under Rule 68 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988; defendants raised two objections (prevailing party and inclusion of costs).
The district court conducted a lodestar analysis and awarded $290,997.94 in costs, including $286,065.00 in attorneys’ fees; defendants appealed.
The district court’s decision is affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Rule 68 include attorneys’ fees when offers settle all claims?	Barbour-Gonzalez-Massey	White Plains	Yes; Marek v. Chesny governs and fees may be included if costs include them.
Should fee award relate to plaintiffs’ degree of success?	Barbour-Gonzalez-Massey	White Plains	Discretionary; substantial fee award affirmed despite modest recovery.

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) (Rule 68 applies to fees when included in costs; must specify costs if included)
Townsend v. Benjamin Enters., Inc., 679 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2012) (highly deferential review of fee awards)
White v. N.H. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (fees are not an element of damages; separable from substantive claims)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (fee awards not necessarily limited by the amount of damages won)
Kassim v. City of Schenectady, 415 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2005) (rejects proportionality-based fee reductions for disproportionate monetary stakes)