Lima v. Newark Police Department
658 F.3d 324
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Lima, a plaintiff, sued the Newark Police Department and officers, later adding officials and a Monell claim against the City of Newark.
- Lima sought damages, including attorney's fees and costs, under federal and state law.
- Before discovery and after amendments, Newark offered a Rule 68 offer of judgment for $55,000 to cover all claims, stating inclusion of all claims but not expressly addressing fees.
- Lima accepted the Offer and sought judgment for $55,000 with costs to be taxed by the court under Rule 54(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- The District Court held the Offer included attorney's fees and costs, denying an application for fees, and awarded judgment accordingly.
- The Third Circuit reversed, holding the Offer was silent as to fees and costs, requiring the court to determine reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 68 include fees when not explicit? | Lima argues the Offer was silent on fees; costs to be set by court. | Newark contends the Offer includes fees as part of the lump sum. | Offer silent on fees; fees must be determined by the court. |
| May extrinsic evidence of intent govern Rule 68 interpretation? | Lima: extrinsic intent should not control; language governs. | Newark: surrounding emails show intent to include fees. | Extrinsic evidence is inapplicable; plain offer controls. |
| Is Lima a prevailing party to recover attorney's fees under § 1988 given a Rule 68 settlement? | Lima argues settlement may yield fees if justified; status to be determined by court. | Newark contends the offer precludes further fee litigation and discounts from Buckhannon. | Prevailing party status not established by the offer; fees must be determined after evaluating the offer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) (costs include attorney's fees per §1988; lump-sum offers permitted)
- Le v. University of Pennsylvania, 321 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2003) (offer must explicitly include costs to bind the court)
- El Club Del Barrio, Inc. v. United Cmty. Corps., 735 F.2d 98 (3d Cir. 1984) (silence on costs does not waive; intrinsic terms govern)
- Ashley v. Atl. Richfield Co., 794 F.2d 128 (3d Cir. 1986) (express waiver required for fees; silence not sufficient in non-Rule 68 settlements)
- Torres v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 189 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. 1999) (clear waiver language required to lose fee rights)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. West Virginia DHHR, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing party status defined by judicial relief, not settlement)
- Truesdell v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 290 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2002) (fee recovery tied to judicial alteration of legal relationship)
- Singer Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram, 650 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2011) (prevailing party inquiry includes whether relief changes legal relationship)