ZINNA v. Congrove
680 F.3d 1236
10th Cir.2012Background
- Zinna sued Congrove under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation; jury awarded nominal damages of $1 and $1,791 for emotional distress.
- District court awarded Zinna $8,000 in attorneys’ fees under § 1988, after denying most requested economic damages and excluding non-winning claims.
- Court relied on Farrar v. Hobby’s de minimis success framework to justify substantial fee reduction, deeming the victory largely technical.
- Zinna appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion by undercutting the lodestar and misapplying Farrar’s factors.
- The panel concludes the district court erred in its analysis of the Farrar factors and in using an arbitrary fee figure, remanding for proper calculation.
- Post-argument, Congrove died and the estate’s personal representative, Judy Congrove, was substituted as Defendant-Appellee for purposes of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zinna’s success was merely technical | Zinna prevails on a significant First Amendment issue | Victory largely nominal given damages awarded | Not purely technical; remand required to recalculate fees |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in setting fees at $8,000 | Fees should reflect lodestar and record evidence | Public purpose limited; significant reduction appropriate | Abuse of discretion; remand for lodestar-based calculation |
| How Farrar’s three factors affect fee eligibility here | Two factors support substantial fee for public-interest victory | Third factor undermines public value due to tone/personal animus | Two factors favor Zinna; first factor weighs more but does not defeat fee recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (three-factor test for determining whether success is de minimis)
- Phelps v. Hamilton, 120 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 1997) (three Farrar factors; weight of factors varies)
- Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (two-factor weighing and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Brandau v. Kansas, 168 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 1999) (two factors favor plaintiff; public-benefit assessment merits fee)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (U.S. 2011) (fee shifting; avoid reimbursing for unrelated claims)
- Dahlem ex rel. Dahlem v. Bd. of Educ. of Denver Pub. Schs., 901 F.2d 1508 (10th Cir. 1990) (narrow discretion to deny fees to prevailing plaintiffs)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (concise explanation required for fee awards; lodestar method)
- Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Com'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1983) (First Amendment public-importance guidance for fee awards)