Sue Doe v. Linda Kidd
656 F. App'x 643
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Sue Doe, a developmentally disabled woman, sued South Carolina agencies and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Medicaid waiver violations (failure to provide residential habilitation services with reasonable promptness).
- This Court previously held (Doe I) that § 1396a(a)(8) creates a private right enforceable under § 1983 and (Doe II) that defendants violated the Medicaid Act and ordered them to provide SLP II or CTH I placement.
- After two appeals, defendants delayed meaningful compliance for years; state administrative proceedings later found Doe eligible and she received CTH II placement, making parts of the controversy moot.
- Doe sought $1,868,958 in combined federal and state attorneys’ fees, $59,018.75 in guardian ad litem fees, and costs; the district court awarded only $100,000 (federal fees), reduced guardian ad litem fees, and denied state-fee recovery.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the fee award for abuse of discretion, found multiple legal errors in the district court’s lodestar and reductions, vacated the awards, and directed specific fee awards for the federal litigation while remanding for state-fee consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe is a "prevailing party" entitled to § 1988 fees | Doe argued Doe II made her a prevailing party and thus eligible for reasonable fees | Defendants argued Doe’s success was nominal or technical and no fees were appropriate | Court: Doe is a prevailing party; fees appropriate given meaningful success and legal significance |
| Proper lodestar rates (hourly rates for lead counsel, co-counsel, paralegal) | Doe supported $425/hr (Harrison), $480/hr (Derfner), $150–140/hr (paralegal) with affidavits and comparable § 1983 precedent | District court set lower rates ($280, $450, $85); defendants urged reductions | Court: District court abused discretion for rate determinations; directed $425, $480, and $140/hr respectively |
| Reductions for excessive or unsuccessful hours and overall percentage cut for degree of success | Doe contended only a 25% reduction (for clerical/excess) was justified and opposed deeper cuts; sought full lodestar minus reasonable trimming | Defendants sought larger reductions and subtractions for time on unsuccessful claims; district court cut hours heavily and reduced remaining award 63% for limited success | Court: 25% reduction for excessiveness was acceptable; district court erred in additional vague cuts and 63% across‑the‑board reduction; vacated and set lodestar-based award totaling $669,077.20 (federal) |
| Taxability and amount of guardian ad litem fees | Doe sought $39,173.75 (federal portion) arguing GAL acted in guardian role and entries were non‑legal; submitted supporting declarations | District court cut hours and reduced rate to $75/hr, denying much as attorney work | Court: District court erred; GAL fees are taxable as costs for guardian role; directed award of $39,173.75 for federal litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498 (1990) (states participating in Medicaid must comply with federal Medicaid requirements)
- Bryson v. Shumway, 308 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2002) (overview of Medicaid waiver programs)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method; exclude excessive or unrelated hours)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (degree of success governs reasonableness of fee award; nominal success may yield no fee)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (reasonable fee should attract competent counsel; goals of § 1988)
- Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (framework for lodestar and Johnson factors)
- Mercer v. Duke Univ., 401 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2005) (factors for when prevailing party may receive no fees)
- Webb v. Dyer Cty. Bd. of Educ., 471 U.S. 234 (1985) (state proceedings compensable when useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance federal civil rights litigation)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (the twelve-factor test for fee reasonableness)