Beaver Creek Property Owners Ass'n v. Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District
271 P.3d 578
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Bachelor Gulch enacted a road regulation that barred Strawberry Park construction traffic; construction traffic previously used the roads without issue.
- Plaintiffs sued Bachelor Gulch on state-law and federal-constitutional grounds, including 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims by Vail/Strawberry Park; district court found the traffic regulation invalid on state-law grounds and issued a permanent injunction against enforcement.
- Beaver Creek moved to amend to add §1983 claims after partial summary judgment, seeking attorney fees under §1988; district court awarded fees and costs totaling $954,221 to Beaver Creek and Strawberry Park.
- Beaver Creek’s added constitutional claims were later considered moot after the court invalidated the regulation on state-law grounds; Beaver Creek sought fees related to those post-ruling claims.
- Bachelor Gulch appealed the fee awards; Vail settled, leaving only the issues regarding Beaver Creek and Strawberry Park’s fee awards on appeal.
- Court of Appeals reverses Beaver Creek’s fee award for post-ruling constitutional claims; affirms Strawberry Park’s award and remands for determining Strawberry Park’s appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beaver Creek may recover §1988 fees for post-ruling constitutional claims | Beaver Creek relied on relation back and post-filing amendment to justify fees | Relation back and late amendment cannot create a fee basis; claims were not pleaded initially | Beaver Creek may not recover for post-ruling constitutional claims |
| Relation back and timeliness of added §1983 claims | Amendment before permanent injunction rendered timely | Relation back cannot create fee basis; not timely | Relation back not applicable; amendment did not validate fee entitlement |
| Whether Beaver Creek could rely on other parties’ constitutional claims to secure fees | Other parties’ claims support Beaver Creek’s fee recovery | No authority supports fee recovery through others’ claims | No, Beaver Creek could not recover on that basis |
| Whether Strawberry Park’s constitutional claims were substantial under Hagans for §1988 fees | Claims survived pleading and evidence showed substantiality | Only claims that are obviously meritorious are substantial | Strawberry Park’s claims were substantial under Hagans; fee award justified |
| Appellate fees for Strawberry Park | Strawberry Park should recover appellate fees under §1988 and C.A.R. 39.5 | Fees inappropriate for Beaver Creek; Strawberry Park’s appellate fees limited | Appellate fees awarded to Strawberry Park; Beaver Creek denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1974) (substantiality test for §1988 claims; not insubstantial unless frivolous)
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1966) (fee awards under §1988 depend on material factual nexus and coexisting claims)
- Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 6?122 (U.S. 1980) (substantiality of constitutional claims for §1988; not require ultimate success on merits)
- Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. School Dist., 835 F.2d 627 (6th Cir. 1987) (fluency in labeling claims; focus on substance for §1988 fees)
- Plott v. Griffiths, 938 F.2d 164 (10th Cir. 1991) (substantiality framework for Hagans-based fees)
- Deighton v. City Council, 3 P.3d 488 (Colo. App. 2000) (Colorado precedent applying Hagans substantiality to §1988 fees)
- Brown v. Davidson, 192 P.3d 415 (Colo. App. 2006) (Colorado view on substantiality of constitutional claims for fee awards)