Hutchinson Ex Rel. Julien v. Patrick
636 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- The plaintiffs sued to enforce ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Medicaid Act provisions to obtain integrated community services for individuals with acquired brain injuries in Massachusetts.
- The class was certified and the parties negotiated a comprehensive May 2008 settlement of the substantive claims.
- The Agreement obligated the Commonwealth to expand community services over years, subject to funding and federal approvals, with “best efforts” language and a mechanism to vacate if commitments failed.
- The district court approved the settlement as a court-approved settlement, expressly stating it did not constitute a consent decree and that it retained jurisdiction to hear noncompliance motions.
- The final approval order stated the case would not be closed and judgment would not enter pending compliance with the Agreement.
- The district court awarded $786,123 in attorneys’ fees and costs, which the Commonwealth appealed for prevailing-party status, timing, and reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status under Buckhannon framework | Plaintiffs obtain relief via the Agreement and approval order | Aronov/settlement lacking traditional imprimatur; no final judgment or consent decree | The Agreement plus approval order gave judicial imprimatur; plaintiffs prevail |
| Timeliness of the fee request | Fees may be awarded pendente lite where relief on the merits is established | Fees premature if no final judgment or remedy | Timing proper; relief constitutes sufficient merit-based relief for a fee award |
| Reasonableness of the fee award | Rates and expenses reasonably reflect work performed in a complex case | Rates are high; some costs not recoverable | Court did not abuse discretion; award reasonable and costs recoverable under ADA fee-shifting |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (judicial imprimatur required for fee eligibility; consent decree vs. private settlement analysis)
- Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2009) (order short of consent decree may suffice if its content shows judicial imprimatur)
- Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1989) (fee awards when relief on merits is secured even before final judgment)
- Smyth ex rel. Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 2002) (considers combination of agreement and dismissal order as equivalent to consent decree)
- Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 1 122 (U.S. 1980) (settlement with judicial approval may support fee shifting recovery)
- Richardson v. Miller, 279 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (recognizes functional similarity to consent decree for fee entitlement)