Moran v. City of Lakeland
| Decision Date | 13 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-02166,96-02166 |
| Citation | 694 So.2d 886 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1453 James R. MORAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF LAKELAND, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert H. Grizzard, Lakeland, for Appellant.
Mark N. Miller of Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand, Vreeland & Jacobsen, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellee.
James Moran appeals that part of the order awarding the City of Lakeland attorney's fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. We reverse.
Moran filed an action against the City of Lakeland alleging deprivation of his civil rights under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City filed an offer of judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, but Moran declined. The City then filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. As a result, the City sought its attorney's fees and costs from the date of the offer through the date summary judgment was entered. The trial court granted the City's motion to tax fees and costs and entered an order accordingly. Moran only challenges that part of the order awarding attorney's fees.
We agree with Moran that the trial court erred in awarding the City attorney's fees. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, a federal law preempts a state law where the two conflict. Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988); Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 82 S.Ct. 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 180 (1962).
An offer of judgment filed pursuant to rule 1.442 is governed by section 768.79 as the rule merely incorporates the procedural portion of this statute as a rule of court. Section 768.79(1) provides in pertinent part that a defendant whose offer of judgment is rejected by the plaintiff and who obtains a judgment of no liability may recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees from the plaintiff.
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 authorizes the award of a reasonable fee to the prevailing party in a civil rights action brought pursuant to section 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. "A prevailing defendant may recover an attorney's fee only where the suit was vexatious, frivolous, or brought to harass or embarrass the defendant." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 429, n. 2, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937, n. 2, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).
Thus, because section 1988 allows the award of attorney's fees to prevailing defendants in a much more limited context than does section 768.79(1), section 1988 preempts section 768.79(1). See Garan Inc. v. M/V Aivik, 907 F.Supp. 397 (S.D.Fla.1995) (); Petsche v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 607 So.2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (); Brooks v. Elliott, 593 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbott v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.
...to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'"3 Id. (citation omitted). In Moran v. City of Lakeland, 694 So.2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), this court considered whether section 768.79 conflicted with the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 4......
-
St. John v. Coisman
...to federal law must yield. Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 138, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988); see also Moran v. City of Lakeland, 694 So.2d 886, 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that "a federal law preempts a state law where the two conflict") (citing Felder); Hernandez, v. Coopervi......
-
BDO Seidman v. British Car Auctions, Inc.
...the holding in this case. British Car argues that Clayton v. Bryan, 753 So.2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), and Moran v. City of Lakeland, 694 So.2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) are controlling, but they are distinguishable. Both cases involve specific attorney's fee provisions in federal statutes tha......
-
Jones v. United Space Alliance, L.L.C.
...decisions bind all Florida trial courts.'") (quoting Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla.1992)) (internal citation omitted). In Moran v. City of Lakeland, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant could not recover attorneys' fees under § 768.79 even though he had filed......