Dowdell v. Imhof
676 F. App'x 46
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Dowdell and Shriki) prevailed in a civil-rights settlement against Nassau County and later sought additional attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) for roughly 2.5 years of enforcement and follow-up work after a March 2011 order.
- The district court awarded $470,088.70 in fees for work enforcing and amending the settlement/order and for fees-on-fees; the County Commissioner Imhof appealed.
- Imhof contended enforcement work was unnecessary (pointing to County communications indicating delays were in good faith) and that plaintiffs had a tacit understanding that enforcement would be unnecessary.
- Imhof also argued the fee amount was excessive compared to the first fee award, the billing records were insufficiently detailed, use of six attorneys was excessive, fees-on-fees were barred by waiver or the settlement, and the second fee motion was time-barred under Rule 54.
- The district court found the enforcement work necessary and valuable, the billing records sufficiently detailed, the overall amount reasonable for the additional time, and that fees-on-fees were permissible and timely because the amended order was the pertinent final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were enforcement and amendment-related fees necessary and valuable? | Enforcement/amendment work materially improved compliance and rates; litigation and special-master negotiation produced benefit. | County said communications and good-faith delays made enforcement unnecessary; suggested a tacit understanding obviated enforcement. | Court: No clear error — work was necessary and added substantial value. |
| Was the $470,088.70 award unreasonable (amount/proportionality/billing detail)? | Fee roughly correlates to ~2.5 years of complex work; records were adequately detailed; team size reasonable. | Award nearly double prior award and records are opaque; six-attorney team excessive. | Court: No abuse of discretion — amount justified by additional time/complexity; records adequate; no across-the-board cuts warranted. |
| Were fees-on-fees barred by waiver, settlement, or timeliness? | Plaintiffs can recover fees-on-fees; second motion was timely because enforcement proceedings produced a new final judgment. | Fees-on-fees waived by omission from first motion or barred by settlement; second motion untimely under Rule 54. | Court: Fees-on-fees allowed; no waiver; settlement silence doesn't bar them; second motion timely because amended order was the relevant final judgment. |
| Should the court adopt a proportionality reduction principle for fee awards? | (Implicit) No new proportionality rule needed; lodestar presumption appropriate. | Urged reduction as disproportionate to stakes. | Court: Declined to create new proportionality rule; relied on lodestar and reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (standard: abuse-of-discretion review of fee awards)
- Carco Grp., Inc. v. Maconachy, 718 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (range of permissible decisions in abuse-of-discretion review)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S.) (lodestar—to approximate market fee and induce competent counsel)
- Weyant v. Okst, 198 F.3d 311 (2d Cir.) (attorney’s fees as collateral matters; timeliness under Rule 54 tied to final judgment)
- Valley Disposal, Inc. v. Cent. Vt. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 71 F.3d 1053 (2d Cir.) (settlement silence does not waive future fee claims)
- Barbour v. City of White Plains, 700 F.3d 631 (2d Cir.) (declining proportionality-based reductions for fee awards)