SOTOMURA v. COUNTY OF HAWAII

Nos. 80-4488, 80-4498.

679 F.2d 152 (1982)

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.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 7, 1982.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Wayne Minami, Atty. Gen., Chelun Huang, Jackie Mahi Erickson, Deputy Attys. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, Clifford H. F. Lum, Corp. Counsel, Bruce Ito, Deputy Corp. Counsel, County of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii, for defendants-appellants/cross-appellees.

Clinton Ashford and Douglas MacDougal, of Ashford & Wriston, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKOPIL and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

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.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases