Fox v. Vice
131 S. Ct. 2205
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Fox challenged Vice in a Louisiana police chief election; claims included defamation (state law) and federal §1983 claims (including interference with public office).
- Vice removed the federal claims to federal court; after discovery, the district court granted summary judgment on the §1983 claims and remanded the remaining state claims to state court.
- Vice sought §1988 attorney’s fees; he submitted billing for the entire suit without segregating time spent on federal versus state claims.
- The district court awarded Vice the full amount of fees, treating the entire litigation as focused on the frivolous federal claims, with no segregation or reduction for surviving state claims.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Fox’s argument that fees may not be awarded unless all claims are frivolous, and held Vice could recover fees for the whole case.
- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded to apply a but-for standard: a defendant may recover only the portion of fees caused by the frivolous claims, allocating costs accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for mixed claims | Fox contends no fees unless all claims frivolous. | Vice argues he may recover for all work arising from frivolous claims. | But-for standard applies; recover only fees caused by frivolous claims. |
| Allocation of fees between frivolous and non-frivolous claims | Fox seeks no more than proportionate fees tied to frivolous claims. | Vice seeks full fees if work aided defense against frivolous claims. | Trial court must allocate to the frivolous claim; not windfalls for defendant. |
| Overlap of federal and state claims | Interrelated claims support broader fee recovery. | Overlap does not justify full recovery; only incremental costs matter. | Overlap allowed but must be analyzed under but-for standard; not all overlapped work is recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (defendant may recover fees for frivolous claims under §1988)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (fee award for mixed success; but-for standard guidance later used)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U. S. _ (U.S. 2010) (limits on fee awards; context for discretion in awarding fees)
- Balmer v. HCA, Inc., 423 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2005) (mixed-claim fee award considerations)
- Colombrito v. Kelly, 764 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1985) (allocation of fees when frivolous claim adds no extra expense)
- Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (fee allocation in mixed-frivolous and non-frivolous claims)