McAfee v. Boczar

• Decision Date: 23 January 2014
• Docket Number: 13–1088,13–1356.,Nos. 12–2481,s. 12–2481
• Citation: 738 F.3d 81
• Parties: Eileen McAFEE, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Christine M. BOCZAR, Defendant–Appellant, and John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3, Defendants. Eileen McAfee, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Christine M. Boczar, Defendant–Appellant, and John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3, Defendants. Eileen McAfee, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Christine M. Boczar, Defendant–Appellant, and John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

738 F.3d 81

Eileen McAFEE, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Christine M. BOCZAR, Defendant–Appellant,andJohn Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3, Defendants.

Eileen McAfee, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Christine M. Boczar, Defendant–Appellant,andJohn Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3, Defendants.

Eileen McAfee, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Christine M. Boczar, Defendant–Appellant,andJohn Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3, Defendants.

Nos. 12–2481, 13–1088, 13–1356.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Oct. 30, 2013.

Decided: Dec. 12, 2013.

As Amended Jan. 23, 2014.

ARGUED:Henry Keuling–Stout, Keuling–Stout, PC, Big Stone Gap, Virginia, for Appellant. William H. Hurd, Troutman Sanders LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Michael R. Ward, Morris & Morris, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen C. Piepgrass, Troutman Sanders LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Nos. 13–1356 and 13–1088 affirmed; No. 12–2481 vacated and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Judge DUNCAN joined.

KING, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Christine Boczar, a deputy sheriff of Powhatan County, Virginia, appeals the judgment of damages plus attorney's fees entered against her in the Eastern District of Virginia in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. Boczar presents two appellate issues: First, she contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity such that a trial should not have been conducted; and, second, she maintains that, even should the jury's verdict stand, the district court's award of $322,340.50 in attorney's fees to plaintiff Eileen McAfee is contrary to law. As explained below, we reject Boczar's qualified immunity contention and affirm the verdict of damages totalling $2943.60. We vacate the attorney's fee award, however, and remand for an award of $100,000, exclusive of costs.

I.

A.

On December 28, 2010, Eileen McAfee accompanied a friend to a residence in Powhatan County, Virginia, to inspect a dog that appeared to be in distress. ¹ After securing permission from the owner, McAfee examined the dog and concluded that it lacked appropriate shelter but was otherwise in good condition. McAfee then bought the animal a new doghouse and, on January 7, 2011, delivered it to the dog and its owner. While setting up the doghouse, McAfee sought to feed the pet a treat. Unfortunately, in its eagerness to eat the treat, the dog accidentally bit McAfee's hand, causing McAfee to seek medical treatment at a local hospital. The hospital reported McAfee's dog bite to the animal control authorities in Powhatan County.

Deputy Boczar, an animal control officer with the Powhatan County Sheriff's Office, received notification of McAfee's dog bite and began an investigation. On January 10, 2011, she inquired by telephone about the incident, asking McAfee where the dog was housed. McAfee, who was unfamiliar with Powhatan County, replied that she did not know the owner's address but could lead Boczar to the dog's location. Boczar declined McAfee's offer and ended the conversation, which was apparently the only exchange Boczar ever had with McAfee. Boczar thereafter contacted two other persons, further seeking to locate the dog. Both of those persons had spoken to McAfee about the dog bite incident, but neither had sought to ascertain from McAfee the location of the dog.

Predicated on these conversations, Boczar determined that McAfee had refused to disclose to the authorities the location of the dog, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2–313.1, which prohibits the withholding of information about possibly rabid animals. As a result, on January 13, 2011, Boczar secured an arrest warrant for McAfee from a state court magistrate. McAfee was arrested on the warrant and transported to the County Sheriff's office. The magistrate thereafter released McAfee on bond, and a one-day jury trial was conducted in magistrate court on May 27, 2011. At its conclusion, McAfee was acquitted.

B.

On September 28, 2011, the underlying complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that Boczar had arrested McAfee without probable cause. The complaint made three separate claims: first, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of McAfee's Fourth Amendment rights (Count I); second, a claim for malicious prosecution under state law (Count II); and, third, a false imprisonment claim under state law (Count III). In responding to McAfee's complaint, Boczar moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, which the court promptly denied. Boczar also sought the dismissal of Count III under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the court granted. A jury trial was thereafter conducted in Richmond on the allegations in the first two counts of the complaint.

At the trial's conclusion on July 6, 2012, the jury returned a verdict for McAfee on the § 1983 claim and in favor of Boczar on Count II. At trial, McAfee requested both compensatory and punitive damages as “determined by the evidence.” McAfee v. Boczar, 906 F.Supp.2d 484, 488 (E.D.Va.2012) (the “Opinion”). In closing argument to the jury, counsel for McAfee summed up her claims thusly: “[M]oney can never really compensate for what has been done here, but money is the only remedy the law has to offer. So what is the right number to compensate Ms. McAfee? Is it $50,000? Is it $500,000? Something else? Is it something more? You decide.” J.A. 339.² The jury verdict found that McAfee was entitled to recover $2943.60 in stipulated out-of-pocket expenses relating to her state court defense, which the jury awarded on her § 1983 claim. The jury declined to otherwise award McAfee additional compensatory or any punitive damages.

After the jury returned its verdict, Boczar made a renewed motion for qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim. The district court again denied the motion, explaining that Boczar's conduct in arresting McAfee lacked probable cause and “fails to meet the test of objective reasonableness” required for the protection of qualified immunity. McAfee v. Boczar, No. 3:11–cv–00646, 2012 WL 3525619, at *2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 15, 2012). In so ruling, the court focused on Boczar having secured McAfee's arrest warrant on the basis of false statements. Indeed, Boczar represented to the magistrate that McAfee “refuses” to give any information about the dog's whereabouts. Id. at *3. At trial, however, it was established that this statement was untrue. Boczar testified that, in her only conversation with McAfee, the latter had explained that she could locate the house where the dog lived, though she did not have the address. Neither of the other two persons Boczar interviewed about the dog bite incident told Boczar that McAfee had refused to give the location of the dog. As a result, the court concluded that Boczar lied to the magistrate to secure the arrest warrant, and that such conduct “does not give rise to qualified immunity.” Id.

After the court accepted the verdict and entered judgment thereon, McAfee filed a petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, seeking a total of $365,027 in attorney fees, plus $10,305.51 in costs (the “Fee Petition”). Though acceding to the full amount of the documented costs, Boczar complained that the requested fees were unreasonable and countered with a fee proposal awarding $15,000. The district court then referred the Fee Petition to a federal magistrate judge for settlement negotiations. A settlement conference was conducted on September 19, 2012, but the parties were unable to reach an accord. The magistrate judge reported to the district court that the state's Division of Risk Management, which was responsible for the damages award, had refused to negotiate in good faith.

Because the settlement negotiations failed, the district court independently evaluated the Fee Petition to determine whether the request was reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which provides that “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee” with respect to a claim, inter alia, made pursuant to § 1983. Applying the familiar “lodestar” method, the court granted the Fee Petition in part. By its Opinion, the court determined that the hourly rates of McAfee's lawyers were reasonable and that, applying a ten percent reduction in the hours logged to account for “block billing,” the amount of time devoted to the case by counsel was also reasonable. As a result, the court awarded McAfee $322,340.50 in attorney's fees, plus the $10,305.51 in agreed costs. See McAfee, 906 F.Supp.2d at 505.

Boczar has timely appealed, challenging the district court's denial of qualified immunity and its related decision to conduct a trial, and also seeking to vacate the attorney's fee award. We possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.³

II.

A.

McAfee alleged that Boczar violated her Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting her to arrest without probable cause. In seeking relief from McAfee's allegations of liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Boczar unsuccessfully asserted qualified immunity. We review de novo a district court's denial of qualified immunity. Merchant v. Bauer, 677 F.3d 656, 661 (4th Cir.2012).⁴

In this case, Boczar invoked qualified immunity in the district court prior to trial by way of a summary judgment request. In some circuits, a defendant's failure to follow the procedures set forth in Rule 50—beginning with a Rule 50(a) motion and then renewing the contention under Rule 50(b)—constitutes a waiver of the qualified immunity claim. See, e.g., Parker v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.2008) (“[W]e have held that even if a defendant raises qualified immunity at summary judgment, the issue is waived on appeal if not pressed in a Rule 50(a) motion.”); Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 304 (6th Cir.2010) (“The Defendants' failure to make a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law u...