774 F.3d 419
7th Cir.2014Background
- Morjal sued City of Chicago and officers under §1983 for unlawful search/seizure, excessive force, conspiracy, false imprisonment, assault, and malicious prosecution.
- Morjal accepted Rule 68 offer to settle for $10,001 plus reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined by the court.
- Dispute arose over reasonable attorneys’ fees; Morjal sought $22,190.50, district court awarded $17,205.50, then Morjal sought $16,773 for fee petition litigation.
- Defendants argued Rule 68 limits fees to those accrued through the offer date; district court weighed §1988 goals against Rule 68 incentives and awarded $2,000 for challenges to the fee petition.
- On appeal, court held Rule 68 offer did not preclude §1988 fees for post-offer fee litigation and affirmed award.
- The decision rests on distinguishing non-frivolous vs. frivolous fee challenges and authority to sanction or award under §1988
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 68 limits §1988 fees to accrued-at-offer-date | Morjal | Morjal's counsel | Affirmative: offer limits fees to accrued as of acceptance; but court can award §1988 fees for conduct beyond the offer if objections were beyond the scope |
| Whether district court could award fees for post-offer fee petition litigation | Morjal | City | Affirmed: district court had authority under §1988 to award fees for improper challenges to fees |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in amount of $2,000 award | Morjal | City | Not necessary to decide: court had authority to award fees for post-offer conduct; affirm on basis of §1988 authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. James, 147 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 1998) (Rule 68 encourages settlement; offers have consequences for refused offers)
- Sanchez v. Prudential Pizza, Inc., 709 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2013) (Ambiguities in Rule 68 offers construed against offering party; limits on fees)
- Nordby v. Anchor Hocking Packaging Co., 199 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 1999) (Offfers and consequences for non-acceptance; limits on fee recovery)
- Johnson v. Cherry, 422 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2005) (Sanctions remedies available; notice requirement for sanctions)
- Manez v. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC, 533 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2008) (Sanctions and fee-shifting considerations in civil rights actions)
- Dal Pozzo v. Basic Machinery Company, Inc., 463 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2006) (Sanctions standards and fee-shifting principles in §1988 cases)
- Feldman v. Olin Corp., 692 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2012) (Authority to interpret Rule 68 offers and fee-shifting effects)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (Inherent authority to impose sanctions for bad-faith conduct)
- G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) (En banc discussion of sanctions and conduct)