Zinna v. Congrove Ex Rel. Estate of Congrove, 755 F.3d 1177

Zinna sought approximately $503,000 in attorney’s fees after a jury awarded $1,791 for First Amendment violations.
This court previously held the district court abused its discretion by awarding only $8,000 in trial fees and remanded to calculate a lodestar and adjust for the suit’s specifics.
On remand, the district court awarded $16,240 for trial fees and $18,687.50 for appellate fees, totaling $34,927.50 and entered a judgment on March 15, 2013.
Zinna appealed within 30 days of the March 15, 2013 judgment, challenging both trial and appellate fee awards.
The panel held that the district court ignored the mandate and law-of-the-case, abusing its discretion in calculating the trial-fee award.
Appellate-fee challenge was treated as waived due to inadequate briefing; costs from a 2009 judgment remained enforceable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal for trial fee award	Zinna's appeal timeliness rests on the March 15, 2013 judgment finalizing both fees.	November 8, 2012 order was final for trial fees, making the separate March judgment extraneous for timeliness.	Final appealable order was March 15, 2013; timely for both trial and appellate fees.
Law-of-the-case and mandate compliance	District court was bound by our mandate to calculate a lodestar before adjustments.	Remand allowed reevaluation of Farrar factors and independent determination of fees.	District court violated the law-of-the-case and mandate by not calculating a lodestar and improperly reweighing Farrar factors.
Appellate fees and briefing	Appeal challenges to appellate fees were meritorious and not adequately addressed.	Appellate-fee issue was inadequately briefed and waived.	Appellate-fee issue waived.
Costs award	Costs should be subject to appellate review alongside fees.	Costs awarded in 2009 judgment remain valid and enforceable.	Costs award remains valid.

Zinna v. Congrove, 680 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2012) (mandate to calculate lodestar and adjust fees; not mere technical victory)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (three-factor test for determining reasonable fees after prevailing-party status)
Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (applies Farrar factors in fee determinations)
White v. N. H. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (fees may be collateral to merits but can be appealed as a unitary issue when remanded)
United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227 (1958) (finality standards for judgments and orders)
Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp., 53 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 1995) (law-of-the-case guidance on subsequent proceedings in remand)
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case doctrine and mandate considerations)
United States v. Alvarez, 142 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 1998) (three narrow circumstances for not applying the law-of-the-case doctrine)