 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O'Meara v. City of Huntington Beach1/11/2005
l policy or awards the fee against a party who is, by definition, a "violator" of federal law. (See Christianburg Garment Co., supra, 434 U.S. 412, 418-419.) As such, the established federal standards for fee awards against unsuccessful civil rights plaintiffs have devolved into tests which are, functionally, virtually indistinguishable from the "frivolous" and "without foundation" tests found in the two state statutes. (See id. at p. 421 ["In sum, a district court may in its discretion award attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith."]; Elks National Foundation v. Weber (9th Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 1480, 1485 ["The district court awarded attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and alternatively, under Rule 11. This court has said that fees may be awarded against an unsuccessful plaintiff under section 1988 only if the action is `meritless, in the sense it is groundless or without foundation.'"]; see also Dyson v. Sposeep, supra, 637 F.Supp. at p. 622 ["A defendant may seek an award of attorney fees under section 1988 if the plaintiff's actions was vexatious, frivolous, or brought to harass or embarrass the defendant . . . or if the action is groundless or without foundation."].)
The objective standards by which we evaluate the fee award here are thus all pretty similar: "frivolous," "without reasonable cause," "unreasonable," "without foundation, or groundless."
At the outset, we must reject any suggestion that merely because the city could not obtain summary judgment against O'Meara, such a denial of its motion rendered O'Meara's false arrest claim ipso facto reasonable. As the city's counsel pointed out at oral argument, a summary judgment or adjudication motion may be denied for purely procedural reasons and therefore the denial will cast no light on the merits of a case.
As to the merits, the salient fact for this court is the inclusion of an initial false arrest claim. In his opposition to the city's motion for fees, O'Meara's evidence was devoted almost exclusively to his excessive force claim. He really had no good reasons to have asserted a false arrest claim, and a quick review of the facts shows why: The most damning fact was, literally, the "smoking car," which had just crashed. O'Meara was its registered owner, he had the keys to the car, he resisted arrest, and he gave every objective indication of being flat-out drunk. While O'Meara might have had a case that the police used excessive force after his arrest, the fees that were awarded were less than the fees incurred prior to the dismissal of the patently meritless false arrest claim.
V. DISPOSITION
The judgment and attorney fee award in favor of Huntington Beach are both affirmed. Respondent will recover its costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR:
ARONSON, J.
FYBEL, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|