Roberta Miller v. City of Portland
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15953
9th Cir.2017Background
- Miller sued the City of Portland and three officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged excessive force during pregnancy, seeking substantial damages; she later dropped the wrongful-death claim.
- Portland served a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment: $1,000 plus reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined by the court; Miller accepted the Offer and judgment was entered.
- Miller moved for $16,900 in attorney’s fees; Portland opposed, arguing the $1,000 was a de minimis/nominal judgment and thus no fees should be awarded under § 1988.
- The magistrate judge and district court evaluated entitlement under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, concluded the $1,000 was nominal under Farrar v. Hobby, and denied fees.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the accepted Rule 68 Offer is a contract that expressly granted reasonable fees, so the district court should have determined and awarded a reasonable fee rather than applying § 1988 entitlement analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prevailing plaintiff who accepted a Rule 68 Offer expressly providing for "reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined by the Court" can be denied fees because the monetary component of the judgment is nominal | Miller: Offer is a binding contract promising reasonable fees; court must calculate and award them per the Offer | Portland: The $1,000 is de minimis/nominal; under § 1988 and Farrar, a nominal award typically precludes fee recovery | The Ninth Circuit reversed: interpret the accepted Rule 68 Offer as a contract entitling Miller to a reasonable fee award; district court erred by applying § 1988 nominal-damage analysis instead of enforcing the Offer’s fee term |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (Sup. Ct.) (nominal damages generally preclude § 1988 fees)
- Holland v. Roeser, 37 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 1994) (Rule 68 offers are interpreted under contract principles)
- Erdman v. Cochise County, 926 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1991) (usual rules of contract construction apply to Rule 68 settlements)
- Guerrero v. Cummings, 70 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1995) (accepted Rule 68 offer becomes a settlement agreement)
- Wilcox v. City of Reno, 42 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 1994) (degree of success guides § 1988 fee decisions)
- Bell v. United Princeton Props., Inc., 884 F.2d 713 (3d Cir. 1989) (if settlement provides fees, court need not decide whether fees would otherwise be awarded)
- Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 803 F.2d 987 (9th Cir.) (time spent litigating fees in § 1983 cases is compensable)