19 F.4th 1078
8th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (two homeless minors, their mothers, and two nonprofits) sued the State, the Riverview Gardens School District and other officials alleging violations of the McKinney-Vento Act (MVA), the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and Equal Protection.
- The parties negotiated an MOU and consent decree: an expert would review the State’s MVA compliance and recommend an Implementation Plan; defendants did not admit wrongdoing; district defendants agreed to pay fees for claims against them; the State expressly reserved rights to challenge any fee award.
- Plaintiffs moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after entry of the consent decree; the State disputed only the reasonableness of the requested amount below and did not argue that the MVA lacks a private right of action under § 1983.
- The district court awarded a reasonable fee, allocated the portion accrued before the MOU to the district defendants and the remainder to the State, and made the State jointly and severally liable for the district defendants’ share.
- On appeal the State argued (1) § 1988 did not authorize fees for the MVA claim because the MVA provides no private cause of action under § 1983, and (2) the State should not be jointly and severally liable for fees imposed on the district defendants.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it declined to consider the State’s new-first-on-appeal private-right argument because the parties settled the merits and the MOU implicitly resolved that claim; it also held the district court did not abuse its discretion in making the State jointly and severally liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1988 authorizes fees for the MVA claim (i.e., whether MVA creates private right enforceable via § 1983) | Plaintiffs argued they prevailed and are entitled to fees under § 1988 for their MVA claim. | State argued MVA does not create a private cause of action under § 1983, so § 1988 fees are unavailable for that claim. | Court declined to consider this new appellate argument; settlement/MOU resolved the MVA claim and the court affirmed the fee award. |
| Whether the State may be held jointly and severally liable for fees assessed against the district defendants | Plaintiffs (and district court) treated the State as responsible for post-MOU fees and made it jointly/severally liable for the district defendants’ share. | State argued it reserved fee challenges in the MOU and should not be jointly/severally liable for fees consented to by district defendants. | Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in apportioning fees and imposing joint and several liability on the State. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976) (appellate discretion to consider issues raised first on appeal)
- Universal Title Ins. Co. v. United States, 942 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1991) (exceptions to waiver for new issues on appeal)
- Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for apportioning fee awards)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (distinguishing jurisdiction from existence of a cause of action)