Bravo Ex Rel. Gonzales v. City of Santa Maria
810 F.3d 659
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Bravos sued City of Santa Maria and SMPD officers for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations based on a pre-dawn SWAT entry during a warrant search.
- The warrant affidavit omitted Javier Bravo, Jr.'s seven-month custody status in state prison, undermining probable cause for the nighttime SWAT entry.
- Santa Barbara City defendants conducted part of the searches; the Bravos settled with Santa Barbara for $360,000 prior to trial.
- Jury found Santa Maria defendants liable; compensatory damages were $5,000 to Javier Sr. and nominal to Hope and E.B.; no punitive damages.
- District court awarded over $1 million in attorney fees and offset some costs; Bravos appealed both fee and cost rulings.
- The panel held that settlement with Santa Barbara could be considered in evaluating degree of success and remanded for cost offset adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether Santa Barbara settlement can be considered in fee degree of success | Bravo argues settlement should be considered to raise success level | Defendants contend settlement should not affect fee as to non-settling defendants | Yes; district court may consider settlement in assessing success |
| whether costs should be offset by settling co-defendant's costs | Costs are not offset like fees; Bravos contend no offset | Costs should be offset where settling defendant reimburses costs | Yes; offset appropriate for costs to avoid double recovery |
| whether the lodestar plus enhancements approach was appropriate here | Lodestar plus enhancement justified by public benefit and complex defense | High fee award unsupported by modest damages; Farrar restricts recovery | Affirm fee award; Farrar distinguished; public benefits justify enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (degree of success is the most critical factor in fee awards; nominal damages may limit fees)
- Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1996) (consider non-monetary benefits in determining fees)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; other considerations may adjust)
- Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546 (1986) (lodestar and adjustments framework; consider other factors)
- Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2013) (degree of success and context of case inform fee reasonableness)
- Corder v. Brown, 25 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 1994) (offset of attorney fees by settling co-defendant payments; federal/state law considerations)
- McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, 51 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1994) (contextual approach to fee awards; not strictly proportional to damages)
- Regan Roofing Co. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.App.4th 1685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (California rule on costs and settlements supporting offset principles)