Stanczyk v. City of New York, 752 F.3d 273

Background

In Nov. 2010 Anna Stanczyk was arrested by NYPD officers DeMartino and Grossweiler; a jury found excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and awarded $55,000 compensatory plus $2,000 punitive damages against each officer. Judgment entered Apr. 2, 2013.
Defendants served a Rule 68 Offer on Dec. 11, 2011: $150,001 plus reasonable fees, expenses, and costs to that date, and a release of the City and the two officers. Stanczyk rejected the Offer and proceeded to trial.
At trial Stanczyk presented substantial testimony about physical and psychiatric injury and future treatment needs, but she introduced virtually no evidence of past or future medical costs (no bills or expert testimony on cost) and her counsel declined to propose a damage number to the jury.
The district court (June 24, 2013) awarded Stanczyk fees and costs incurred before the Rule 68 Offer (with a reduced hourly rate for lead counsel) and awarded defendants their post-Offer costs (but not attorneys’ fees). Stanczyk appealed, seeking a new trial on damages and challenging the fee/cost rulings.
The Second Circuit affirmed: denied a new trial on damages (no prejudice shown, jury instructions adequate, and plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to prove costs/quantify damages was dispositive) and upheld the district court’s application of Rule 68 and the reduced fee award.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of damages / new trial	Jury award ($59,000 total) was inadequate and tainted by trial errors, improper defense summation, and racialized questioning	Jury verdict stands; any improper remarks were cured by judge’s instructions and plaintiff failed to prove damages or give the jury a reference point	No new trial; plaintiff failed to show prejudice and counsel’s failure to prove costs/ask for a number was decisive
Jury instruction on future damages	Court should have given a separate charge on future damages and future medical costs	The general charge permitted consideration of future suffering; medical-cost awards would be speculative without evidence	No error: instruction adequate for future suffering; future medical costs speculative given lack of proof
Effect of Rule 68 on cost-shifting	Rule 68 only cuts off plaintiff’s recovery of post-offer costs/fees; it does not require a prevailing plaintiff to pay defendant’s post-offer costs	Rule 68(d) requires the offeree who obtains a less favorable judgment to pay costs incurred after the offer was made	Held for defendants: Rule 68 shifts post-offer costs (excluding attorneys’ fees) to the prevailing plaintiff when judgment is less favorable than the rejected offer
Scope/validity of the Offer (multiple defendants)	Offer was to the City only (allowed judgment against City) and thus not operative as to individual officers or failed for lack of apportionment	Offer expressly applied to City and individual officers (release language and Corp. Counsel signature for all defendants); apportionment not required so long as offer is comparable to judgment	Offer valid as made on behalf of all defendants; Rule 68 need not apportion damages among multiple defendants and need not allow judgment against every named defendant

Key Cases Cited

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) (interpreting Rule 68’s effect on post-offer fee awards in civil-rights cases)
Reiter v. MTA N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 457 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 68 is a cost-shifting rule encouraging settlement)
Crossman v. Marcoccio, 806 F.2d 329 (1st Cir. 1986) (detailed analysis that Rule 68 requires offeree to pay post-offer costs when judgment is less favorable)
Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 68 shifts post-offer costs to plaintiff in multi-defendant contexts)
Harbor Motor Co. v. Arnell Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., 265 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2001) (Rule 68 cost-shifting applied to defendants’ post-offer costs)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method and reducing fees based on degree of success)