Binta B. Ex Rel. S.A. v. Gordon
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- This is a consolidated appeal concerning attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988 in a long-running TennCare consent-decree case.
- The 2003 consent decree established protections for TennCare enrollees and allowed plaintiffs’ counsel monitoring duties and fee recovery.
- Defendants sought to modify the decree amid TennCare restructuring; a 2005 revised decree partially granted and limited modifications.
- District court awarded over $2.57 million in fees but reduced it by 20% due to limited success.
- By the time of the appeal, several named class representatives had died or disenrolled, raising questions about prevailing-party status.
- The Sixth Circuit vacates/remands several fee categories and remands the overall reduction to determine reasonableness under Buckhannon and related principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing-party status after dissolution of class reps | Fitts remained a valid representative; status persists under Sosna analogy | No adequate representative; no prevailing party after 2005 | Fitts remained adequate; plaintiff prevailed overall in 1985-2005 context |
| Compensability of post-decree work defending decree | Post-decree work can be compensable if necessary to enforce decree | Buckhannon requires a judicially sanctioned alteration for fees | Prior decree supports fees for defense/enforcement where necessary to enforce the decree |
| Remedy for categories involving Rosen, John B., Ware, Daniels | Hours spent in related matters should be compensable if tied to enforcement | Separate cases should not generate recovery in this case | Vacate remand for those hours and reassess applicability to this case |
| Impact of lobbying, policy analysis, and public relations hours | Some such hours are reasonably expended to enforce the decree | These hours are not reasonably expended on litigation and should be cut | Vacate/remand portions; remand to determine proper allocation under enforcement standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air v. Penn. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 478 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1986) (post-decree enforcement fees permitted when integral to remedy)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (needs judicially sanctioned change for prevailing-party status; catalyst theory rejected)
- Hadix v. Johnson, 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1998) (affirms post-judgment fees for enforcing remedy; intertwining issues)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (properly calculate fees; degree of success limits)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (U.S. 2010) (limits fee enhancements; no windfalls)
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1986) (recovery for post-decree enforcement work tied to securing the decree)
- Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1989) (considerations for determining reasonableness of fee awards)
- Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2007) (limits on certain post-settlement fees; no windfalls)