Buckhannon Board & Care Home v West Virginia Dept. H & H

Decision Date29 May 2001
Docket Number99-1848
Parties BUCKHANNON BOARD AND CARE HOME, INC., et al., PETITIONERS v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES et al.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc., which operates assisted living residences, failed an inspection by the West Virginia fire marshal's office because some residents were incapable of "self-preservation" as defined by state law. After receiving orders to close its facilities, Buckhannon and others (hereinafter petitioners) brought suit in Federal District Court against the State and state agencies and officials (hereinafter respondents), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the "self-preservation" requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Respondents agreed to stay the orders pending the case's resolution. The state legislature then eliminated the "self-preservation" requirement, and the District Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the case as moot. Petitioners requested attorney's fees as the "prevailing party" under the FHAA and ADA, basing their entitlement on the "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a "prevailing party" if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct. As the Fourth Circuit had previously rejected the "catalyst theory," the District Court denied the motion, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The "catalyst theory" is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the FHAA and ADA. Under the "American Rule," parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney's fees, and courts follow a general practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority, Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 819. Congress has employed the legal term of art "prevailing party" in numerous statutes authorizing awards of attorney's fees. A "prevailing party" is one who has been awarded some relief by a court. See, e.g., Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758. Both judgments on the merits and court-ordered consent decrees create a material alteration of the parties' legal relationship and thus permit an award. The "catalyst theory," however, allows an award where there is no judicially sanctioned change in the parties' legal relationship. A defendant's voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change. The legislative history cited by petitioners is at best ambiguous as to the availability of the "catalyst theory"; and, particularly in view of the "American Rule," such history is clearly insufficient to alter the clear meaning of "prevailing party" in the fee-shifting statutes. Given this meaning, this Court need not determine which way petitioners' various policy arguments cut. Pp. 3-12.

203 F.3d 819, affirmed.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

Numerous federal statutes allow courts to award attorney's fees and costs to the "prevailing party." The question presented here is whether this term includes a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct. We hold that it does not.

Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc., which operates care homes that provide assisted living to their residents, failed an inspection by the West Virginia Office of the State Fire Marshal because some of the residents were incapable of "self-preservation" as defined under state law. See W. Va. Code 16-5H-1, 16-5H-2 (1998) (requiring that all residents of residential board and care homes be capable of "self-preservation," or capable of moving themselves "from situations involving imminent danger, such as fire"); W. Va. Code of State Rules, tit. 87, ser. 1, 14.07(1) (1995) (same). On October 28, 1997, after receiving cease and desist orders requiring the closure of its residential care facilities within 30 days, Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc., on behalf of itself and other similarly situated homes and residents (hereinafter petitioners), brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia against the State of West Virginia, two of its agencies, and 18 individuals (hereinafter respondents), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief1 that the "self-preservation" requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA), 102 Stat. 1619, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

Respondents agreed to stay enforcement of the cease and desist orders pending resolution of the case and the parties began discovery. In 1998, the West Virginia Legislature enacted two bills eliminating the "self-preservation" requirement, see H. R. 4200, I 1998 W. Va. Acts 983-986 (amending regulations); S. 627, II 1998 W. Va. Acts 1198-1199 (amending statute), and respondents moved to dismiss the case as moot. The District Court granted the motion, finding that the 1998 legislation had eliminated the allegedly offensive provisions and that there was no indication that the West Virginia Legislature would repeal the amendments.2

Petitioners requested attorney's fees as the "prevailing party" under the FHAA, 42 U.S.C. 3613(c)(2) ("[T]he court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney's fee and costs"), and ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12205 ("[T]he court ... , in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation expenses, and costs"). Petitioners argued that they were entitled to attorney's fees under the "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a "prevailing party" if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct. Although most Courts of Appeals recognize the "catalyst theory,"3 the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected it in S-1 and S-2 v. State Bd. of Ed. of N. C., 21 F.3d 49, 51 (1994) (en banc) ("A person may not be a 'prevailing party' ... except by virtue of having obtained an enforceable judgment, consent decree, or settlement giving some of the legal relief sought"). The District Court accordingly denied the motion and, for the same reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. Judgt. order reported at 203 F.3d 819 (CA4 2000).

To resolve the disagreement amongst the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari, 530 U.S. 1304 (2000), and now affirm.

In the United States, parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney's fees-the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975). Under this "American Rule," we follow "a general practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority." Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 819 (1994). Congress, however, has authorized the award of attorney's fees to the "prevailing party" in numerous statutes in addition to those at issue here, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 259, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k), the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, 89 Stat. 402, 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e), and the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U.S.C. 1988. See generally Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 43-51 (1985) (Appendix to opinion of Brennan, J., dissenting).4

In designating those parties eligible for an award of litigation costs, Congress employed the term "prevailing party," a legal term of art. Black's Law Dictionary 1145 (7th ed. 1999) defines "prevailing party" as "[a] party in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of the amount of damages awarded . - Also termed successful party." This view that a "prevailing party" is one who has been awarded some relief by the court can be distilled from our prior cases.5

In Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758 (1980) (per curiam), we reviewed the legislative history of 1988 and found that "Congress intended to permit the interim award of counsel fees only when a party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims." Our "[r]espect for ordinary language requires that a plaintiff receive at least some relief on the merits of his claim before he can be said to prevail." Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760 (1987). We have held that even an award of nominal damages suffices under this test. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992).6

In addition to judgments on the merits, we have held that settlement agreements enforced through a consent decree may serve as the basis for an award of attorney's fees. See Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980). Although a consent decree does not always include an admission of liability by the defendant, see, e.g., id., at 126, n. 8, it nonetheless is a court-ordered "chang[e] [in] the legal relationship between [the plaintiff] and the defendant." Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792 (1989) (citing He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3328 cases
  • Pulido v. Cuccinelli
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • October 27, 2020
    ...party" is defined as "one who has been awarded some relief by the court." Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. W.V. Dep't of Health and Human Res. , 532 U.S. 598, 602, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). As Plaintiffs concede, they are not prevailing parties at this time. Additionally, accor......
  • Hollowell v. VA. MARINE RESOURCES COM'N
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • April 20, 2010
    ...definition used by federal courts for federal fee-shifting statutes. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 1839, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (applying same Black's Law Dictionary definition for the term "prevailing ......
  • S.F. v. McKinney Indep. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 6, 2012
    ...some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit."); and Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603-04, 121 S. Ct.1835, 149 L. Ed.2d 855 (2001) (a prevailing party is one that has obtained a judgment on the merits, a consent ......
  • Goldring v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 26, 2005
    ...as a term of art, as it did with the term "prevailing party" in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 604-05, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). Even in that situation, this court and other circuits have recognized tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Quick Hits – ADA and FHA cases of note
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • January 6, 2023
    ...when filed. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 600 (2001) even if the plaintiff’s lawsuit results in the desired change the court cannot award attorneys’ fees if there is no final judgmen......
  • Tampa District Court Breathes Life Into 'Catalyst Theory,' Challenging Eleventh Circuit
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 21, 2011
    ...to attorney's fees. The Supreme Court in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), had previously rejected the "catalyst theory" for prevailing party status, albeit in the context of the Fair Housing Authority Act (FHAA) ......
  • Did The Eleventh Circuit Just Kill The Mootness Defense In FLSA Cases?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 19, 2012
    ...the Americans with Disabilities Act, Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001). And the court in Dionne seemed to suggest that a defendant could effectively moot an FLSA case at any stage in the proceedings by ten......
25 books & journal articles
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 40 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...317 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003). (22) Id. at 1087; see also Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (stating that a litigant qualifies as a prevailing party if it has obtained a court-ordered change in the legal relationship be......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • January 1, 2018
    ...Law Corp. v. Samsung Elect. Co., 2010 BCSC 1661 (Can.), 293 Buchannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001), 8 Burke v LFOT Pty Limited (2002) 209 CLR 282, 354 Burke v LFOT Pty Limited [2002] HCA 17, 354 Buspirone Patent Litig., In re, 210 F.R.D......
  • Arbitrary and Capricious: the Dark Canon of the United States Supreme Court in Environmental Law
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 33-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...269 at 209, and acting as “extortionist[s]” through citizen suits, Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Hous., 532 U.S. 598, 618 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring); Justice Rhenquist reprimanding environmental interveners, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 435 U.S......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...Cir. Apr. 27, 2001), 6th-01, §§ 603.8, 703.1 Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources , 532 U.S. 598, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001), U.S. Supreme Court-10, 9th-10 Buckner v. Apfel , 213 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. May 22, 2000), 8th-00, § 106.9, 107.16, 605.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT