Singer Management Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram
650 F.3d 223
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Live Gold Operations, Inc. promotes The Platters and The Cornell Gunter Coasters under unregistered marks.
- New Jersey Truth in Music Act bars certain uses of group names unless conditions such as express authorization exist.
- Live Gold filed suit August 17, 2007 seeking a TRO and injunction to block state enforcement and labeling practices at a Hilton Atlantic City concert.
- Judge Debevoise granted a TRO prohibiting interference with Live Gold's performances and marketing, signaling a likelihood of merits-based relief.
- On September 7, 2007 the State shifted its interpretation of the Act to Live Gold's view; TRO was modified/partially resolved, and the district court vacated the TRO as moot for future conduct.
- Magistrate denied attorney's fees to Pryor Cashman; district court later dismissed Live Gold's complaint as moot and ruled Live Gold was not a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; Live Gold appeals this denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Live Gold is a prevailing party under §1988. | Live Gold obtained merits-based relief via TRO and the district court's binding of the State. | No final merits judgment or consent decree; voluntary change moots and Buckhannon bars catalyst-based fees. | No; no enforceable merits judgment or consent decree existed. |
| Whether a merits-based interim relief can confer prevailing party status. | TRO granted on merits-based likelihood of success warrants fees. | Interim relief alone does not satisfy Buckhannon without a judicially sanctioned change on the merits. | In this case, TRO did not constitute a merits-based final relief. |
| Whether the State's later change mooted the case and prevented prevailing party status. | State's acceptance of Live Gold's view created a judicially sanctioned change and binding effect. | Voluntary change cannot by itself create prevailing party status per Buckhannon. | State's change did not yield an enforceable judgment or consent decree. |
| Whether Live Gold could rely on judicial estoppel or other doctrines to obtain fees. | Court-bound State position supports estoppel, given the agreement and relief obtained. | No judicially sanctioned outcome beyond TRO. | Court did not rely on judicial estoppel to award fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (catalyst theory not a basis for attorney's fees; requires judicially sanctioned change or final relief)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (merits-based relief required for prevailing party status)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755 (U.S. 1987) (merits-based relief required; needs more than symbolic victory)
- Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754 (U.S. 1980) (interim relief may warrant fees only if relief on merits earned some relief)
- People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2008) (interim relief can confer prevailing-party status when merits-based and judicially sanctioned)
- J.O. v. Orange Twp. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2002) (interim relief may confer fees if derived from merits determination)
- PAPV v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2008) (precedent supporting merits-based interim relief as prevailing)