Valdez v. Squier
676 F.3d 935
10th Cir.2012Background
- NVRA Section 7 requires designated voter registration agencies to distribute voter forms with public assistance applications; HSD is such an agency for New Mexico.
- HSD’s policy: voter registration forms are provided only if the applicant checks YES or orally indicates registration; blanks on the declination form lead to no form being provided.
- Plaintiff Allers (replacing Begay) challenged HSD’s policy as violating Section 7 by not distributing forms to those leaving the declination blank.
- Section 5 claims were brought against TRD and MVD for failure to provide voter registration services; a written settlement resolved those claims and established a fee-related provision.
- Settlement agreements allocated some fees and expenses against TRD/MVD; the Secretary of State refused to pay any portion, prompting a fee application seeking recovery from the Secretary for the Section 5 claim.
- District court awarded fees reflecting the lodestar minus TRD/MVD payment, and held the Secretary of State liable under the settlement for remaining amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 7 compliance by HSD policy | Allers argues HSD must provide a form unless the applicant writes a declination. | HSD argues failure to check means no obligation to provide; declination blank relieves duty. | HSD must provide a voter form unless there is a written declination to register. |
| Estoppel against plaintiffs’ counsel | No estoppel; counsel not party to Indiana case. | Estoppel requires inconsistent positions by counsel in related cases. | Judicial estoppel does not apply; counsel’s position not binding on this case. |
| Prevailing party status for Section 5 fees | Settlement agreement conferred fee liability on all defendants; plaintiffs are prevailing by settlement. | Prevailing party requires merits-based victory or court-ordered decree. | Plaintiffs are prevailing parties under the settlement for purposes of fees. |
| Secretary of State’s liability for fees | Settlement allocated responsibility for fees among defendants; TRD/MVD payment does not exhaust Secretary’s liability. | Plaintiffs failed to segregate by defendant; liability should be limited. | Secretary liable for the portion not covered by the TRD/MVD settlement; fee allocation permissible without strict defendant-by-defendant segregation. |
| Fees for preparation of fee application | Fees for preparing the fee petition were reasonable and supported by documentation. | New issue raised on appeal; not properly considered. | Not addressed on appeal; court declines to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (judicial estoppel and related limitations (Supreme Court))
- Webb v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 155 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 1998) (judicial estoppel and related principles in filings)
- Shoels v. Klebold, 375 F.3d 1054 (10th Cir. 2004) (contractual interpretation and settlement issues in fees)
- ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2011) (review of attorney-fee awards; standard of review)
- Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2011) (arguments raised for the first time on appeal)