*2 HENDERSON, Before RONEY and Cir- DYER, Judges, cuit Senior Circuit Judge.
DYER,
Judge:
Senior Circuit
appeal presents
This
wheth-
plaintiffs’ attorneys
er
are entitled
of attorneys
to an award
fees
pursuant
state defendants
the Civil
Fees Awards
Act,
42 U.S.C. 1988
and the Equal
Act,
court,
passing
upon whether the
statutes
otherwise
an
authorize
award of
re-
fused to make such an award because the
prevailing parties,
circumstances existed that
unjust.
would have made an award
We
conclude
were prevailing
parties,
but we
district court
circumstances foreclose an
of attorneys
award
and thus
affirm.
the Florida
of Health and Rehabilitative Services
(HRS) changed
prohibit
manual
in an
inclusion
Aid
Families with
De-
pendent
(AFDC) grant,
Children
of the nat-
ural, non-legal father and his paternity
where
had not
established
by judicial process.
This
prompted by a Federal Action Transmittal
by the Department
issued
of Health and
(HHS)
Human
May
Services
plaintiffs requested
One of the
and re-
ceived
administrative
which re-
September
sulted in
final order entered
denying
AFDC because of the
HRS Manual.
Culbertson, Orlando, Fla., Barry
R.A.
C.
On November
action was
Laboda,
Marin-Rosa, Orlando, Fla.,
Carlos
brought on behalf
of a class of
plaintiffs.
of AFDC who are related to
Kelley, Baltimore, Md.,
Gwenda J.
dependent
Claire
children and the
chil-
Dept.
D. Dryfuss,
of Health & Rehabilita
dren whose AFDC
had
been de-
Services, Tallahassee, Fla.,
Robert W.
solely
ground
nied or terminated
on the
Genzman,
Orlando, Fla.,
Atty.,
paternity
Asst.
had not been
established
for defendants-appellees.
state
action.
language of
1988 condi-
Nothing in the
16, 1981, plaintiffs moved
November
power to
Court’s
award
District
tions the
injunction. On December
preliminary
the issues or on
litigation of
full
ruling
deferred
fees on
the district court
determination
representations
judicial
based
a
tiff’s
motion
More-
rights have been violated.
that it would rescind
by counsel
over,
Report expressly stated
the Senate
applicants and
policy, reinstate all
new
the
recipients
of coun-
of the award
purposes
“for
affected
who had been
*3
may
considered to
parties
be
payment for all
sel
have
rights
policy with retroactive
new
lost benefits.
they
when
vindicate
prevailed
verified
Counsel for HHS
judgment, or
through a consent
any
not result in
loss
this action would
obtaining
relief.”
formally
funding under the AFDC
of
94-1011,
p. 5
U.S.Code
18, 1982,
S.Rep. No.
filed an-
be-
January
HRS
HHS
pp.
Admin.News
alleged
Cong.
&
in
swers which
by
that Florida could
ing assured
HHS
policy regarding
1981
return to its
122, 129, 100
Gagne, 448 U.S.
Maher v.
suf-
putative
father without
(1980).
2570, 2574,
L.Ed.2d 653
65
par-
in
financial
fering diminution
federal
may
example,
party
considered
“For
had,
18, 1981,
on December
ticipation,
litigation
if
success
‘prevailing’
retroactively.
all AFDC benefits
reinstated
decree,
by a consent
fully terminates
jurisdiction by
suggestion of lack of
aOn
settlement,
voluntary cessa
out-of-court
HRS,
by
of mootness filed HHS
reason
practice by the defend
of the unlawful
by plaintiffs,
the district
objected to
and
court dismissed the
mooting of the case when
or other
action as moot.
right.”
Doe v.
has vindicated
plaintiff
Busbee,
Cir.1982).
1375, 1379(11th
F.2d
684
plaintiffs moved for an
Subsequently,
attorneys fees under the Civil
award of
Rights
test is “wheth
Act, 42
Attorneys Fees Awards
substantially
has
er he or she
relief
the central
received
(1976),
Equal
and the
1988
U.S.C.
to
requested
or has been successful
Act, 28
2412
issue,”
Watkins v. Mobile
denied the motion for the
The district court
(5th
Board,
Housing
632 F.2d
567
stated.
reasons above
Cir.1980), or,
“if
way,
stated in another
significant catalyst
was a
plaintiffs’ lawsuit
The threshold
that must be
pri
motivating
provide
defendants to
plaintiffs
is whether or not
are
addressed
by
mary
sought
relief
in a manner desired
where,
here,
parties
prevailing
statu
Kimbrough, 652
litigation.” Robinson v.
by
are mooted
remedial action
tory claims
Cir.1981).
(5th
F.2d 458
subsequent to the law
by the defendants
unimpressed with the
We are
nothing in
There is
the record to
suit.
show that either the state or federal de
victory
plaintiffs’
of the defendants that
represent the vindication of
does not
anything
rein
fendants had done
toward
litigation
was
rights because
tiffs’ civil
unnecessary.
stating
giving
them retroactive
record
does not
the suit was filed. On the
effect until
contrary,
disagree
this out. We therefore
bear
plain
on the occasions when the
finding
district court’s
agency they
tiffs contacted
told that
prevailing parties.
the state could not withdraw the
challenged policy because of the Federal
an addition
court made
district
position
Transmittal. This
was re
Action
filed the
suit was
finding that after the
hearings
officer of the State
affirmed
promptly and
and state defendants
Florida
of Health and Reha
possible steps to resolve
effectively took all
employee
An
Services.
HHS
bilitative
light
in
of
of
by the suit and
issues raised
the
these
change
policy
confirmed
an award
special circumstances
necessary. We have searched the
unjust. We
attorneys anything
in
find
that would
record
vain to
support
justify
ample
that there was
plaintiffs’
was not
show that
action
court’s discretion
of the district
exercise
necessary
bring
about a
In Newman v.
refusing to award fees.
Inc., 390 U.S.
Enterprises,
Piggie Park