188 So. 3d 68
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2012 coalition and Romo plaintiffs challenged Florida’s 2012 congressional redistricting under Art. III, §20, alleging maps were drawn to favor Republicans and incumbents; trial court found districts 5 and 10 unconstitutional and entered final judgment in 2014.
- Plaintiffs moved post-judgment for attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine; defendants opposed adoption of the doctrine and argued plaintiffs waived any fee claim and failed to give statutorily required notice to the Department of Financial Services.
- Trial court found plaintiffs prevailing on the merits but denied fee awards, stating Florida follows the American Rule and any exception should be created by the legislature or appellate courts; trial court also found procedural deficiencies in plaintiffs’ fee claims.
- Florida Supreme Court subsequently reviewed and corrected aspects of the trial court’s redistricting rulings in League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner and approved a remedial map; the Supreme Court had not decided whether to adopt the private attorney general doctrine.
- On appeal this court affirmed the trial court, declining to adopt the private attorney general doctrine and holding plaintiffs waived fee claims by failing to plead them and by not complying with section 284.30 notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida should adopt the private attorney general doctrine as an exception to the American Rule | Doctrine should be adopted because the litigation vindicated important public policy and benefited many citizens; fees needed to subsidize private enforcement | Courts should not create a broad fee-shifting exception; such policy choices belong to the Legislature; adoption would create uncertainty and unintended consequences | Court declined to adopt the doctrine; policy choice reserved to Legislature/appellate authority |
| Whether plaintiffs waived their claim for attorneys’ fees by failing to plead them | Plaintiffs argued fee claim could not be pleaded earlier under a new doctrine and was properly raised post-judgment | Defendants argued failure to plead fees is waiver under Stockman and plaintiffs could have amended their pleadings | Court held plaintiffs waived fee claims for failing to plead or timely amend; Romo fees-stricken claim was not re-pled |
| Whether plaintiffs satisfied statutory notice to recover fees from the State (section 284.30) | Plaintiffs contended post-judgment service on Department of Financial Services cured notice | Defendants argued section 284.30 requires pleading-level service before recovery and post-judgment service is insufficient | Court held plaintiffs failed to comply with section 284.30; notice requirement is a condition precedent to recovery |
| Whether equitable considerations or unique facts (legislative misconduct) compelled fees despite doctrine absence | Plaintiffs argued unique circumstances (legislative actors) and public benefit justify fees now | Defendants maintained legal and procedural barriers control; separation of powers concerns exist | Court rejected equitable exception; procedural and separation-of-powers concerns weigh against awarding fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (discussing private attorney general doctrine and circumstances for equitable fee awards)
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (refusing judicially created broad exception to the American Rule)
- State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Town of St. John, 751 N.E.2d 657 (declining to adopt private attorney general doctrine; policy choice for legislature)
- New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 127 N.M. 654 (refusing doctrine adoption; citing risks to access and judicial resources)
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (fee claims must be pled; failure to plead is waiver)
- Hale v. Dep’t of Revenue, 973 So.2d 518 (statutory notice to Department of Financial Services is condition precedent to fee recovery)