JOSEPH YUKI SOTOMURA AND GRACE FUMIYE SOTOMURA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS,
v.
COUNTY OF HAWAII, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND GEORGE R. ARIYOSHI, GOVERNOR OF HAWAII, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A party who prevails by obtaining dismissal of an appeal as untimely is considered a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Plaintiffs obtained a judgment in a civil rights suit, and defendants appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Plaintiffs then …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Suit Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases and more on FLexlaw
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKO-PIL and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
The Sotomuras obtained a judgment in their civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants appealed. After briefs were filed on the merits and on the Sotomuras’ motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, we granted the motion to dismiss. The Sotomuras now seek attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for services performed in connection with the appeal. The Sotomuras are “prevailing parties,” a prerequisite to such an award, even though they prevailed by obtaining dismissal of the appeal as untimely rather than affirmance on the merits. Hastings v. Maine-Endwell Central School District, New York, 676 F. 2d 893, 896 (2d Cir. 1982). Cf. Maher v. Gayne, 448 U.S. 122, 129, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 2575, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Williams v. Alioto, 625 F. 2d 845, 847-48 (9th Cir. 1980).
Normally fees are not awardable to a party who prevails on appeal only because of erroneous procedural or evidentiary rulings below. Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 759, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 1990, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). But this court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss was not interlocutory but final and, in effect, conclusively determined the “substantial rights of the parties.” Id. at 757, 100 S.Ct. at 1989. Our dismissal contemplates no future proceedings involving the merits of the controversy which could change the favorable result obtained by the Sotomuras. Swietlowich v. County of Buchs, 620 F. 2d 33, 34 (3d Cir. 1980). Viewing the litigation as a whole, Gurule v. Wilson, 635 F. 2d 782, 791 (10th Cir. 1981), the Sotomuras successfully defended the district court judgment in their favor and are “prevailing parties” under section 1988.
The Sotomuras seek $34,941.40 in attorneys’ fees. Although the issues were complex, most of the legal arguments had already been briefed before the district court. The hours claimed for preparation of the briefs on appeal appear to involve some duplication and inefficiency. Upon due consideration, we award attorneys’ fees in the amount of $25,000, plus costs in the amount of $158.86.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jensen v. City OF SAN Jose & Harry Stangel, 806 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1986)
-
Mantolete v. Bolger, 791 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1986)
-
United States v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1986)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754 (U.S. 1980)
- Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (U.S. 1980)
- Gurule v. Wilson, 635 F.2d 782 (10th Cir. 1980)
- Williams v. Alioto, 625 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1980)
- Hastings v. Maine-Endwell Cent. Sch. Dist., 676 F.2d 893 (2d Cir. 1982)
- Swietlowich v. Cnty. OF Bucks & Twp. of Bristol & Harry Merker & Sgt. Stanley Martin & Sgt. Walter Hughes & Patrolman H. J. McDonough, 620 F.2d 33 (3d Cir. 1980)