Cantu Services, Incorporated v. Melvin Frazier, et
682 F. App'x 339
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cantu Services had been teaming partner to a licensed blind vendor at Fort Polk; after the vendor died, Cantu continued operations and later sought to remain a teaming partner when the Louisiana Workforce Commission (LWC) selected a new licensed blind vendor (Frazier).
- Frazier initially emailed Cantu naming it as his teaming partner, but the LWC held a meeting to pick the teaming partner and ultimately selected Blackstone instead; Blackstone and Frazier obtained the long-term federal contract.
- Cantu sued LWC members (State Officials) and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process violations; Cantu also brought a state-law breach-of-contract claim against Frazier.
- The district court and this Court dismissed claims against State Officials in official capacities (sovereign immunity) and granted summary judgment for State Officials in their personal capacities; the claim against Frazier was dismissed as JMOL. Final judgment dismissed the suit.
- The State Officials sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for fees incurred defending Cantu’s personal-capacity claims; the district court awarded fees, calling Cantu’s claims frivolous. Cantu appealed only the fee award (and preserved a costs issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prevailing defendants (State Officials) are entitled to § 1988 fees because Cantu’s § 1983 claims were frivolous | Cantu argued its claims had a good-faith basis, relying in part on a regulatory argument that State Officials lacked authority to participate in teaming selection | State Officials argued Cantu’s claims were frivolous or baseless and fees are appropriate under Christiansburg standard | Court affirmed that defendants may obtain fees only if claims were frivolous/unreasonable; it found Cantu’s appellate briefing undeveloped and did not show district court abused discretion in finding claims frivolous |
| Whether the awarded fee amount (lodestar and rate) was reasonable | Cantu argued the district court failed to analyze hours for excessiveness/duplication and improperly awarded some fees | State Officials defended their hourly rates and hours; district court used $130/hr as community rate and applied Johnson factors | Court found the district court’s rate determination not clearly erroneous and that it applied the Johnson framework; remanded for more specific findings about hours and particular fee components |
| Whether fees for work related to Joseph Burton were properly awarded | Cantu did not contest these fees on appeal | State Officials initially included Burton-related fees but later conceded they should not have been awarded | Court vacated and remanded the award to allow the district court to reconsider and exclude Burton-related fees |
| Whether Cantu could renew challenge to taxation of costs to preserve appeal on prevailing-party status | Cantu sought review solely to preserve issue | State Officials and Frazier had been adjudged prevailing parties by earlier appeals affirming the merits dismissals | Court held district court did not err denying Cantu’s motion to review taxation of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (Supreme Court 2011) (distinguishes fee-shifting standards for prevailing plaintiffs vs. prevailing defendants)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court 1978) (defendant fees allowed only if plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (Supreme Court 2010) (lodestar presumption and need for reasonably specific explanation of fee awards)
- Combs v. City of Huntington, 829 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2016) (describes two-step lodestar and application of Johnson factors)
- Jimenez v. Wood County, 621 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2010) (lodestar calculations and exclusion of excessive/duplicative time)