Wallis v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.
680 F. App'x 515
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jeanette Wallis sued BNSF under the Federal Railroad Safety Act; a jury found for Wallis on claims related to a record suspension and imposition of 40 PPI points.
- After judgment, the district court awarded Wallis attorney’s fees and non‑taxable costs; the clerk taxed taxable costs.
- BNSF appealed the district court’s fee and non‑taxable cost awards and the clerk’s taxation of costs.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews the fee decision for abuse of discretion and considers whether the district court properly accounted for limited success and unsuccessful claims (punitive damages).
- The district court explained it considered limited success but declined to reduce the lodestar further, finding Wallis prevailed on the central personnel actions presented to the jury.
- Ninth Circuit affirms: BNSF waived challenge to clerk’s taxable costs for failure to appeal to the district court, and the fee/cost awards were not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BNSF preserved challenge to clerk's taxation of taxable costs | Wallis implicitly contends clerk’s taxation was proper because no timely district‑court objection | BNSF contends clerk’s award should be reviewed on appeal | Waived — BNSF failed to appeal clerk’s award to district court, so appellate review is barred (Walker v. California distinguished) |
| Whether district court abused discretion by not reducing fees based on amount of damages awarded vs sought | Wallis argues limited damages did not undermine success on central claims and fees are reasonable | BNSF argues fees should be reduced because damages awarded were small relative to relief sought | No abuse — court considered relationship between fees and results, focused on overall excellence of result, and gave adequate reasons (Hensley/McCown) |
| Whether court erred for not deducting hours spent on unsuccessful punitive‑damages claim | Wallis argues time was reasonably spent because punitive damages went to the jury | BNSF argues Hensley requires reduction for unsuccessful claims/hours | No abuse — district court reasonably declined to subtract the 55 hours given evidence supported sending punitive damages to jury; not like McGinnis where court ignored success relationship |
| Whether plaintiff’s success was too limited to support awarded non‑taxable costs and fees | Wallis argues she prevailed on the central personnel actions and obtained substantial relief including deterrent public benefit | BNSF argues success was limited and further lodestar reduction was mandatory | No abuse — court reasonably found Wallis prevailed on central claims; adjustments for limited success are discretionary and court’s explanations were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Ada Cty., 285 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for fee awards)
- Walker v. California, 200 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 1999) (challenge to clerk’s taxation must be appealed to district court to preserve appellate review)
- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Goldwyn, 328 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1964) (distinguishable precedent regarding appealing clerk’s orders)
- McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court must consider damages sought vs awarded but evaluate overall excellence of the result)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method and consideration of limited success)
- Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 738 F.3d 214 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court need not detail exact relationship of damages sought to damages awarded where record shows consideration)
- McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, 51 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1994) (faulty fee reductions where court refused to relate success to fee award)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standards for determining whether district court applied governing law or made unsupportable factual inferences)