Commissioners Court of Medina County, Tex. v. U.S., 81-1495

• Decision Date: 02 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-1495,81-1495
• Citation: 221 U.S.App.D.C. 116,683 F.2d 435
• Parties: . v. UNITED STATES of America, et al. Antonio Garcia, III, et al., Appellants. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 435

683 F.2d 435

221 U.S.App.D.C. 116

COMMISSIONERS COURT OF MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS, et al. v. UNITED STATES of America, et al. Antonio Garcia, III, et al., Appellants.

No. 81-1495.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 13, 1982.

Decided July 2, 1982.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil No. 80-0241).

Jose Garza, San Antonio, Tex., with whom William L. Robinson, Norman J. Chachkin, Washington, D. C., and Rolando L. Rios, San Antonio, Tex., were on the brief, for appellants.

Keith A. Rosenberg, Washington, D. C., for appellees Commissioners of Medina County, Tex., et al.

Walter W. Barnett, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellees United States of America, et al.

Before BAZELON, Senior Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT and TAMM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge TAMM.

TAMM, Circuit Judge:

The question presented in this case is whether parties who intervene as defendants in a declaratory judgment action are "prevailing parties" eligible for attorneys' fees when the case becomes moot. The district court found that defendant-intervenors were not, on the facts of this case, "prevailing parties." Because we believe that the district court gave determinative weight to an improper factor, we vacate its order and remand for reconsideration.

I.

Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq. (1976 & Supp. III 1979), certain jurisdictions must seek from the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia preclearance of any "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964...." Id. at § 1973c. Preclearance approval entails a finding, either affirmatively or because the Attorney General interposes no objection, that the standard, practice, or procedure "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or (because of membership in a language minority)." Id. Failure to obtain preclearance approval prior to implementation of any such standard, practice, or procedure is a violation of the Act.

On January 25, 1980, the Commissioners of Medina County, Texas (the County), instituted a declaratory judgment action against the United States pursuant to section 5 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. The relief sought was a declaration that two redistricting plans (the 1978 and 1979 Plans), which had failed to obtain preclearance from the Attorney General, were not adopted in furtherance of a discriminatory purpose and would not, in effect, discriminate on the basis of race, color, or other improper criteria.

Appellants Antonio Garcia, III, Jesus Rodriguez, and Lucio Torres, Mexican-American citizens residing and registered to vote in Medina County, intervened as party defendants in the County's suit against the United States. ¹ In late 1980, during the pendency of the suit, the County submitted yet another plan (the 1980 Plan) to the Attorney General. The 1980 Plan received preclearance approval on December 16, 1980. Upon notification of the preclearance, the district court dismissed the declaratory judgment suit as moot. Commissioners of Medina County, Texas v. United States, Civ. No. 80-0241 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 1980).

Thereafter, Garcia filed a motion for attorneys' fees. Under the Act fees may be awarded, in the discretion of the court, to a "prevailing party." ² To satisfy this threshold eligibility requirement, Garcia argued:

The result of the litigation was that the (1978 and 1979) reapportionment plans ... were never precleared and a third plan, more favorable to defendant-intervenors, was finally adopted by Medina County. Moreover, the plan adopted by Medina County was very similar to the plan advocated by defendant-intervenors. ³

The County countered this claim by arguing as follows:

The Intervenors' proposed plan was rejected by both the United States and Medina County as not being supported by competent statistical data and being too broad a change from prior plans. The 1980 Plan was a compromise between the 1979 Plan ... and one proposed by the government. Intervenors' Plan was substantially different from either of the principal parties' proposed plans and played no part in the compromise process. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (Supp.1980) (sic) to award attorney (sic) fees to Intervenors that entered into the lawsuit on their own motion, that opposed the resolution of the matter that was accomplished by the Plaintiffs and Defendant ..., and (that) completely failed in obtaining the adoption of any part of their proposed plan. ⁴

On March 10, 1981, the district court denied, without opinion, the request for fees. Appellants sought reconsideration and, on April 1, 1981, the motion was again denied with the following notation:

Denied. Defendant-Intervenors did not prevail in this litigation. In fact they opposed the compromise settlement between plaintiffs and the U. S. which was the basis for dismissing the present litigation.

Commissioners of Medina County, Texas v. United States, Civ. No. 80-0241 (D.D.C. Apr. 1, 1981) (order denying attorneys' fees).

On appeal, defendant-intervenors claim that the district court erred in two respects. First, they contend that the district court's failure to enter formal findings of fact and conclusions of law is reversible error. Second, they argue that the district court's determination that they were not prevailing parties is clearly erroneous. We address these contentions in turn.

II.

Appellants contend that the district court's denial of attorneys' fees without formal findings of fact and conclusions of law is plain error. We note that this area is not without controversy. See Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1496, 71 L.Ed.2d 187 (1982) (cert. dismissed as improvidently granted) (White, J., dissenting). This Court has previously held that when attorneys' fees are awarded, district courts must "adequately articulat(e the) underlying reasons" for the award. Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 901 n.39 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc). It would thus seem anomalous to find that a court completely denying fees need not state any reasons.

We need not travel far into this particular thicket because the district court in this case made a finding on the one fact-whether defendant-intervenors were prevailing parties-that is dispositive of any attorneys' fees motion at this early stage of a fees proceeding. Although it cannot be gainsaid that the district court could have expounded further upon its reasoning, we believe that the terse statement rendered in response to the motion for reconsideration provides sufficient insight into the court's rationale to meet any requirement there may be that the underlying reasons be adequately articulated. Accordingly, we reject Garcia's "plain error" argument and turn to the merits of the claim that the district court erred in failing to find appellants "prevailing parties."

III.

Generally, a defendant may not recover attorneys' fees unless the court finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, vexatious, or without foundation. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22, 98 S.Ct. 694, 700, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). There are, however, situations where the procedural posture of a particular case renders the general rule inapplicable. In Prate v. Freedman, 583 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1978), for example, fee claimants intervened as defendants in a reverse discrimination suit challenging an affirmative action program instituted pursuant to a consent decree obtained by the fee claimants in a prior civil rights action. Although the intervening defendants in Prate were awarded fees based upon a finding that plaintiffs' suit was unreasonable and vexatious, the court noted that the argument that the equities underlying defendant-intervenors' request for fees were "little different from those associated with the typical successful minority-group plaintiff" was "not without force." Id. at 46 & n.2. Similarly, in Baker v. City of Detroit, 504 F.Supp. 841 (E.D.Mich.1980), another challenge to an affirmative action plan, defendant-intervenors were awarded fees. The court there noted that the attorneys' fees statute "is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.... The procedural posture of the case should not be dispositive." Id. at 850 (citations omitted).

Moreover, the legislative history of the attorneys' fees provision of the Act expressly recognizes that fees may be awarded in the situation with which we are confronted:

In the large majority of cases the party or parties seeking to enforce such rights will be the plaintiffs and/or plaintiff-intervenors. However, in the procedural posture of some cases (e.g. declaratory judgment suit under Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act) the parties seeking to enforce such rights may be the defendants and/or defendant-intervenors.

S.Rep.No.295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 40 n.42 (1974), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1975, p. 807. It is thus clear from the case law and the legislative history that when the procedural posture of a case places the party who seeks to vindicate rights guaranteed by the Constitution in the position of defendant, the restrictive Christiansburg Garment rule is not applicable. ⁵ Accordingly, neither appellants' status as intervenors nor as defendants precludes an award of fees under the Voting Rights Act.

IV.

It is now well settled that a suit need not proceed to final judgment on the merits in order for a party to "prevail." See Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129-30, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 2574-2575, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980). The legislative history of the Voting Rights Act notes that "for purposes of the award of counsel fees, parties may be considered to have...