Miguel Perez v. University of Puerto Rico
600 F.2d 1
1st Cir.
1979
Check Treatment

*1 al., Plaintiffs, Miguel PEREZ et

Appellants, al., et OF PUERTO RICO UNIVERSITY Defendants, Appellees.

No. 78-1541. First Circuit. Argued April 3, 1979. Decided June Zayas, Rey, Hato P.

Luis Amauri Suarez R., Vicens, with whom Ana Matanzo San Santana, Juan, R., Rio P. Jose E. Colon Piedras, Gonzalez, R., P. Maria E. Pico San- turce, R., Rodriguez, P. and Leonilda Cruz Piedras, R., brief, were on for plain- Rio P. tiffs, appellants. Piedras, Rodriguez-Lecoeur,

Jaime A. Rio R., Aponte-Perez, P. with whom Milton Rio Piedras, R., Katz, were on P. and Michael brief, defendants, appellees. COFFIN, Judge, CAMP- Before Chief BOWNES, Judges. BELL and COFFIN, Judge. Chief us case was before

The last time this the district court’s affirmed summarily sus- plaintiffs had violation of university in pended from the process and right procedural due their dam- awarded nominal they Bou, Rodriguez ages. Perez v. held that the We also erroneously denied had for the deter- plaintiffs and “remanded attor- mination and award neys’ Id. at 24. fees.” once more denied On remand ac- The court for fees. plaintiffs’ motion knowledged § that under U.S.C. prevail- normally be awarded should cases, in civil ing plaintiffs “special circumstances” were found there in this an award that would render *2 2 solely Zarcone, supra, to

unjust. v. benefits himself.” Piggie Newman Park Enter- See Inc., 964, 581 prises, S.Ct. F.2d at 1042. 390 U.S. 88 Perez, (1968); supra, 575 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 It said follows from what we have special at 24. The to F.2d circumstances that an award of fees is not inconsistent are, first, that the which alluded damages. In with an award of nominal judgment only plain- affected the named from deed obvious that should have been meaning tiffs and did not the of “advancfe] Perez, supra, in opinion, our first which context,” process University the cit- due in damages affirmed the award of nominal 788, ing Perry, F.Supp. 438 791 Zarcone v. remanded for an of fees. The award (E.D.N.Y.1977), grounds, aff’d on 581 other not to award of counsel fees is intended (2nd 1978), and, second, Cir. punish any way. the defendant in Rather attorney’s “an award of fees would consti- permit encourage plaintiffs it to is to and judgment tute an indirect and not intended rights. To those enforce their civil declare against defendants” the inconsistent with rights simultaneously denying while the award of nominal seriously of undermine award fees would the policy. Fees congressional declared We do not think the remand order may simply only not be denied because open deny left to the court to fees. Even damages nominal are awarded. if open, however, the issue were reasoning support would not its decision. Though prolong we are reluctant to Supreme The expressly further, Court has held that this case we must remand once process rights due again for actionable for the district court to an determine damages, part, in “because the appropriate attorney’s of fee award consistent importance organized society proce to King with the standards announced in v. process dural due Carey Greenblatt, (1st 1977), be observed.” v. 560 1024 F.2d Cir. 247, Piphus, 266, 1042, See, 435 succeeding e.g., Reynolds U.S. 98 cases.1 and S.Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d (1978). Moreover, 252 (1st 1978); the v. Coomey, 567 F.2d Cir. 1166. Circuit, rejecting Second in Southworth, the district v. 609 Souza 564 F.2d Cir. Zarcone, reasoning court’s in noted in emphasize “that We court district authorizing awards of attorney’s as should scrutinize the affidavit plaintiffs in rights civil Congress actions to both the the and the spent was concerned with only requested enforcement not hourly did not rate. Work that rights of the civil public of the large at lawyer may need to be a be com by done of groups identifiable but also with the pensated King, supra, at 560 a lesser rate. rights of plaintiffs. goal individual Its may was F.2d court be able to at 1027. The impediments to remove financial might less identify tasks that should have taken preclude citizens,’ or ‘private hinder perform collec attor time to than the hours the tively individually, And, or being ney from to actually ‘able while the award worked. rights,’ assert their civil Report p. permit Senate at the of nominal does not 2, Cong. 1976, U.S.Code p. award, & Admin.News an it is factor that deny to a reject . We may therefore the the be on the amount of considered view, that, eligible (4th to be shifting Abel, v. F.2d award. Burt attorneys’ fees, the civil rights plaintiff 1978); is at 1027 King, supra, 560 F.2d obligated to show that his action resulted in of “the amount (permitting consideration others, direct to obtained”).2 benefits rather in than involved the results tempted may 1. We are set to fee the award 2. This does mean that fee not simply explained, par- ourselves to relieve the court and also be we have nominal. As proceeding. policy ties of congressional an additional We do do and hand- not would undercut large part icap so because the to seeking a civil those assert one; evidence, any, factual altogether. defendants’ denying if re- same extent as butting plaintiffs’ counsel’s affidavit not record; opportu- and both sides an deserve nity if dissatisfied with the award set. proceedings for further con- Remanded PLASTICS, INC., Petitioner, GLOMAC opinion.3

sistent with this CAMPBELL, Judge LEVIN H. LABOR NATIONAL RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, (concurring). *3 agree my colleagues I with

While order, purely fee is in more than a Clothing Amalgamated and Textile Union, opinion only AFL-CIO, I on the concur Workers Intervenor. understanding say that we mean what we namely, in the final in set- 78-4046, sentence — Nos. Dockets 78-4058. ting a fee the does have dis- district court take a hard at the amount cretion to look Second Circuit. results-obtained. I do not involved and the Resubmitted after Remand where nominal doubt some eases 29, 1979. March awarded, important matters of are May Decided In principle precedent are at stake. those, reimbursing attorneys for a fee spent may

all well be in order even sig- recovered though their clients have not cases, however, In other nificant litigation may unduly pro- have obtained, wasting the longed for the results In such a resources and time of the court. case, surely no the district court under

obligation grant a fee based on the time

actually spent. poles To which of these this closest,

case comes I shall not venture to say; but I important do feel it that our

opinion conferring be read as a reasonable flexibility upon the district court not mere-

ly to charges calculate time but to ascertain

the value accomplished. of what was friovious, alleging was request appeal, this

3. Defendants’ temerarious for fees denied.