Vallejos v. Lovelace Medical Center, 1:17-cv-00183

Vallejos sued his former employer Lovelace and others in state court alleging Title VII and NMHRA retaliation, defamation, emotional distress, due process violations, and denial of favorable personnel actions.
Defendants removed to federal court; federal court dismissed individual defendants (exhaustion/improper Title VII defendants) and dismissed Vallejos’s federal claims against Lovelace for failure to state a claim; state claims were remanded.
In state court Lovelace moved for summary judgment; the state court granted Lovelace’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice; Vallejos unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration and was told no summary judgment in his favor had been entered.
Vallejos then filed a new federal suit alleging concerted fraud by two state judges and court personnel and asserting deprivation of federal rights based on an asserted state-court judgment in his favor.
This court dismissed the Second Judicial District Court for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed Lovelace with prejudice for failure to state a claim; Lovelace moved for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
The court found Vallejos’s allegations (notably that he had been granted summary judgment) contradicted by the record and thus unreasonable, and awarded Lovelace $4,498.10 in attorneys’ fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prevailing defendant may recover § 1988 fees	Vallejos challenged adverse rulings and alleged federal deprivation based on supposed state-court judgment	Lovelace sought fees, arguing the suit was groundless, vexatious, and contradicted by the record	Court held fees recoverable because suit was frivolous/unreasonable given the record
Whether Vallejos’s fraud/conspiracy allegations had a factual basis	Vallejos asserted concerted fraudulent activity by judges and court staff	Lovelace argued those claims were speculative and contradicted by transcripts and orders	Court held allegations speculative and lacking factual basis
Reasonableness of requested attorney hours and rates	N/A (Vallejos did not oppose)	Lovelace submitted detailed hours and billed rates, reduced by billing judgment	Court found hours and rates reasonable and awardable
Effect of plaintiff’s failure to respond to fee motion	N/A	Lovelace noted no response; local rule treats nonresponse as consent	Court treated nonresponse as consent and proceeded to grant fees

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar: reasonable hours × reasonable rate governs fee awards)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (defendant may recover fees when plaintiff’s suit is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless)
Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2000) (defendant fee recovery in civil rights cases is disfavored but permitted in exceptional circumstances)