953 F.3d 655
9th Cir.2020Background
- Citizens for Free Speech, LLC contracted with Michael Shaw to display political billboards on Shaw’s Alameda County property.
- County officials determined the billboards violated local zoning and initiated nuisance abatement proceedings (investigation, notice, zoning-board hearing, potential fines/removal).
- Citizens previously sued in federal court seeking to enjoin abatement and failed to obtain a permanent injunction; after that litigation, the County opened a new abatement proceeding.
- Citizens filed a new 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking equitable and monetary relief to block the abatement.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Younger abstention and awarded the County attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; Citizens appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Younger abstention required dismissal of the federal § 1983 suit | Citizens argued federal forum appropriate and dismissal was untimely/prejudicial because the court raised Younger sua sponte | County argued the parallel abatement was ongoing, quasi-criminal, implicated important state interests, allowed federal claims to be raised, and federal suit would enjoin state process | Court held Younger applied and dismissal was proper; no Younger exception (bad faith, harassment, or flagrant violation) applied |
| Whether the County was entitled to § 1988 fees (prevailing party and frivolousness) | Citizens argued a jurisdictional dismissal under Younger does not make the defendant a prevailing party and fee award was excessive | County argued it rebuffed Citizens’ challenge, materially altering the parties’ relationship, and Citizens’ suit was frivolous/unreasonable | Court held County was a prevailing party under controlling precedent (CRST/Amphastar), Citizens’ suit was frivolous, and fee award was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (establishes federal-court abstention in certain state proceedings)
- Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (clarifies Younger covers civil enforcement proceedings akin to quasi-criminal actions)
- ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2014) (sets Younger-elements framework)
- Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (Younger exceptions and effect on equitable relief)
- San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 1998) (state interest in land-use/zoning enforcement)
- Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (recognizes nuisance abatement as within Younger’s scope)
- Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006) (discusses fee entitlement after Younger dismissal)
- CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 136 S. Ct. 1642 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (a defendant can be a "prevailing party" without a merits judgment)
- Amphastar Pharm. Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, 856 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2017) (applies CRST to jurisdictional dismissals and fee awards)