92 F. Supp. 3d 14
N.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff applied in 2008 for a New York handgun permit in Schoharie County; while the application was pending he moved his primary domicile to Louisiana but retained a part-time home in New York and informed licensing authorities.
- Schoharie County licensing officer denied the application based on an Appellate Division ruling treating “resides” as equivalent to “domicile.”
- Plaintiff sued in federal court raising Second and Fourteenth Amendment claims; the District Court initially upheld a domicile requirement and granted summary judgment to the defendant.
- On appeal the Second Circuit certified a statutory question to the New York Court of Appeals: whether a non‑domiciliary who owns a part‑time residence in New York is eligible for a local handgun license; the Court of Appeals answered yes, resolving the case in plaintiff’s favor.
- Plaintiff then sought attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for appellate and related work ($238,871.32 in fees; $6,180.03 in costs); defendant opposed, arguing plaintiff was not a prevailing party and that claimed rates/hours were unreasonable.
- The District Court held plaintiff was a prevailing party under § 1988 (state statutory victory certified to state court removed the barrier to relief) but substantially reduced the requested fee award after applying forum‑rate principles and trimming unreasonable, vague, duplicative, and clerical time entries; awarded $54,305.65 in fees and $6,180.03 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is a "prevailing party" under § 1988 | Plaintiff prevailed because the certified state‑law ruling removed the obstacle to obtaining the permit and achieved the requested relief | Defendant argued the victory was purely statutory and not a civil‑rights success, so § 1988 fees are inappropriate | Court held plaintiff prevailed: state‑law victory certified to the state’s highest court that resolved the dispute qualifies under § 1988 |
| Whether special circumstances justify denying fees (e.g., NRA funding, plaintiff opposed certification) | Plaintiff: no special circumstances; fee presumption applies | Defendant: plaintiff opposed certification and had NRA support, so award would be unjust | Court held no special circumstances; fee award not unjust |
| Appropriate hourly rates (forum rule / out‑of‑district counsel) | Plaintiff sought actual out‑of‑district rates (e.g., $1,100/hr for Paul Clement) arguing national appellate market and special expertise justified them | Defendant argued plaintiff failed to show local counsel lacked requisite expertise; forum rates should apply | Court applied Northern District of New York rates (with modest upward adjustments for senior counsel): set specific reduced rates (e.g., $300/hr for Clement, $250 for Brown, $235 for Schmutter, $200 for two appellate associates, etc.) |
| Reasonableness of hours billed (vagueness, block billing, redundancy, clerical tasks, pro hac vice) | Plaintiff sought recovery for 499.3 hours across tasks and attorneys | Defendant challenged vague/redacted entries, overstaffing, excessive drafting/research/oral argument hours, clerical tasks billed at attorney rates, and time for pro hac vice | Court disallowed vague redacted entries (~27 hrs), reduced many task hours for duplication/excess, reclassified clerical and pro hac vice prep to paralegal rates, and otherwise trimmed hours to reach $54,305.65 in fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (defines "prevailing party" standard for fee awards under civil‑rights statutes)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonableness of hours: lodestar method and exclusion of hours not reasonably expended)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (requires a judicially sanctioned change in legal relationship for prevailing‑party status)
- Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980) (permits fee awards where plaintiff prevails on state statutory claim pendent to a constitutional claim)
- Simmons v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2009) (forum‑rule presumptively requires use of forum district hourly rates; standards to overcome presumption)
- Bergerson v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health, 652 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2011) (lodestar calculation and discussion of prevailing rates in Northern District of New York)
- Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses prevailing hourly rates in the Northern District of New York)
- Pontarelli (Exeter‑West Greenwich Regional Sch. Dist. v. Pontarelli), 788 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1986) (upheld fee award where statutory certification to state court resolved federal claims)