Signs for Jesus v. Town of Chichester, 1:11-cv-00101

Background

Plaintiffs Signs for Jesus, Bethal Builders, LLC, and Fabrizio Cusson sued Town of Chichester and Planning Board in NH federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA; case culminated in a consent decree.
Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, damages, a builder’s remedy, certiorari, and attorney’s fees; the court later approved a Consent Decree on May 9, 2011.
Plaintiffs sought site-plan approval for an electronic Bible sign; Planning Board denied, then reconsidered, and ultimately approved the site plan on April 7, 2011.
Consent Decree stated the Planning Board’s April 7 decision would be final and not reversible, and that plaintiffs had secured a building permit; decree did not resolve fees.
Court analyzed whether plaintiffs were prevailing parties entitled to § 1988 attorney’s fees, concluding the decree did not constitute a material alteration of the legal relationship and that relief obtained was de minimis.
Court ultimately denied the motion for attorney’s fees and costs under § 1988.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs are prevailing parties under § 1988	Plaintiffs argue the Consent Decree altered the legal relationship and granted relief beyond mere site-plan approval.	Defendants contend the consent decree did not materially change the parties' legal relationship.	Not a prevailing party; not a material alteration.
Whether the Consent Decree provides material relief justifying fee recovery	Consent Decree safeguarded irreversibility of site-plan approval during the appeal window.	Irreversibility was not a true, enforceable change in the legal relationship; relief was limited.	No material alteration; fees denied.
Whether fees for pre-suit administrative proceedings are recoverable	Fees for planning board/ZBA work relate to federal claims and should be compensable.	Carey/Webb line limits recoverability for time spent before administrative bodies addressing the same issues.	Pre-suit planning-board work not compensable under § 1988.
Whether any fees would be reasonable even if prevailing party	If prevailing, fees should reflect substantial relief obtained; otherwise, reductions apply.	Even with some relief, award should be limited given limited success.	Even if prevailing, only a small fraction of requested fees; overall denial remains.

Key Cases Cited

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (settlement/enforceable consent decree can confer prevailing-party status; material relief required)
Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (U.S. 1980) (consent decree may support fee awards even without liability admission)
Tex. Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1989) (plaintiff must show substantial relief altering legal relationship to be prevailing party)
Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755 (U.S. 1987) (requiring relief on merits to constitute prevailing party; not de minimis)
Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1988) (declaratory relief alone may not confer prevailing status if beneficiary differs in post-judgment effect)
Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275 (1st Cir. 1978) (warns against rewarding de minimis or purely technical victories)
New York City Unemployed and Welfare Council v. Brezenoff, 742 F.2d 718 (2d Cir. 1984) (addresses scope of prevailing-party analysis and awards)
Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1980) (limits recovery of fees for administrative proceedings to when related issues were addressed in court)
Webb v. Board of Education, 471 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1985) (fees for administrative proceedings recoverable only when same legal issues are addressed in court)
74 Cox St., LLC v. City of Nashua, 156 N.H. 228 (N.H. 2007) (planning board/reconsideration authority; relevance to sui generis reconsideration risk during appeal period)
Hutchinson ex rel. Julien v. Patrick, 636 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (prevailing-party inquiry focuses on material alteration of the legal relationship)