Morris v. City of West Palm Beach

• Decision Date: 03 November 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-4343,98-4343
• Citation: 194 F.3d 1203
• Parties: (11th Cir. 1999) Patricia MORRIS and Keith Meyer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1203

194 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 1999)

Patricia MORRIS and Keith Meyer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-4343.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (No. 95-8059-CV-DTKH), Daniel T.K. Hurley, Judge.

Before BIRCH and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and MILLS^*, Senior District Judge.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

This case raises the question of the viability and scope of the "catalyst" test, which is a means of determining whether a party who did not receive a judgment or formal settlement in its favor is a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and other fee-shifting statutes. Because we hold that the catalyst test remains available in this circuit and because the district court incorrectly applied the catalyst test, we VACATE and REMAND.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellants Patricia Morris and Keith Meyer ("Appellants") filed the complaint in this case on January 27, 1995. The complaint challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of the City of West Palm Beach ("City") Code's chapter on parades or processions in public areas (hereinafter "Original Ordinance"), which covers picketing and demonstrating. See R1-1. The complaint also challenged provisions of the City's Police Department's "Permit Application for a Process/Demonstration" Policy (hereinafter "Original Policy"). See id. At the same time, Appellants filed a motion for declaratory, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief. On November 6, 1995, after consolidating Appellants' case with a second case, the district court denied the motion for injunctive relief; we affirmed this denial without opinion on November 6, 1995.¹ Subsequently, the cases were severed and the parties agreed to have the case referred to a magistrate judge for trial and final judgment. On January 6, 1997, the magistrate judge, acting as the district court, set the case for a non-jury trial on the calendar commencing on April 28, 1997. On March 14, 1997, the district court, after consulting with the parties, specially set the trial for April 8, 1997.

On March 26, 1997, the City filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Original Ordinance had been repealed and replaced by a new ordinance on March 10, 1997 ("Revised Ordinance"). In its motion to dismiss, the City stated:

Throughout the course of litigation, Defendant informed Plaintiffs, as was part of the basis for the denial of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, that the code and application process would not be applied to the Plaintiffs, and that the Defendant was revising the code to address certain areas; the City maintained and still maintains the constitutionality of its ordinance and permit application process on its face and as applied.

Defendant has presented over the course of the last several months, drafts of the new ordinance, as a matter of courtesy, but submits that Plaintiffs' agreement or acquiescence on the enactment of the new code is not necessary for the full adjudication of the claim for the Court, or for any other related matter.

R1-39 at 2 (emphasis added). On April 7, 1997, Appellants responded, arguing that the City's voluntary cessation of certain unconstitutional behavior did not moot the cause of action and that the Revised Ordinance contained some of the challenged regulations found in the Original Ordinance. See R2-43. On April 21, 1997, the district court denied the City's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Original Ordinance could be re-enacted and that "there do appear to be areas of the new ordinance which were being challenged by the Plaintiffs in respect to the old ordinance. In other words, the new ordinance carries forward some of the allegedly objectionable requirements for issuance of a permit." R2-47 at 3, 9 (emphasis added). On May 5, 1997, Appellants filed an Amended Complaint challenging the Revised Ordinance. On June 24, 1997, the district court held a non-jury trial on Appellants' Amended Complaint. On July 24, 1997, the district court issued its final judgment finding that the Revised Ordinance was constitutional. In finding that Appellants had failed to show injury, the district court relied on an amendment made in the Revised Ordinance that limited application of the Ordinance to groups of 25 or more. See R-55 (Final Judgment) at 19.

On August 25, 1997, Appellants filed the motion for attorneys' fees and costs at issue in this appeal.² Attached to their motion for fees and costs, Appellants included, among other things, an affidavit from attorney James K. Green on the issue of whether Appellants' lawsuit was a catalyst for the revisions to the Original Code, see R2-56-Ex. C to Mot., and five letters from Appellants' counsel to the City's counsel, see R2-56-Ex. A-E to Mem. The five letters detailed discussions between the parties regarding redrafting the Original Ordinance and detailed the escalation of the litigation after the redrafting discussed in 1995 was delayed. On January 27, 1998, the district court denied Appellants' motion for attorney's fees and costs. The court denied the motion solely on the ground that Appellants had failed to prove causation and made no specific findings on the viability of the catalyst test or on the other elements of the catalyst test. On February 20, 1998, Appellants filed this appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

Appellants argue that the district court incorrectly found that they were not "prevailing parties" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. Only "prevailing parties" may recover attorney's fees under 1988. Church of Scientology Flag Service v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1509, 1512 (11th Cir.1993) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)) (hereinafter "Scientology II "). While "[w]e review the factual findings underlying a district court's determination regarding 'prevailing party' status for clear error," we review de novo the legal question of "whether the facts as found suffice to render the plaintiff a 'prevailing party.' " Id. at 1513.

Because Appellants did not receive a favorable judgment on the merits or entry of a consent decree or settlement, the only means through which they could be found to have prevailed is the "catalyst" test. Under the catalyst test, a plaintiff should be found as prevailing if its " 'ends are accomplished as the result of the litigation even without formal judicial recognition,' " there is a " 'causal connection' " between the plaintiff's lawsuit and the defendant's actions providing relief to the plaintiff, and the defendant's actions were " 'required by law.' " Posada v. Lamb County, Texas, 716 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir.1983) (citations omitted). See also Dunn v. Florida Bar, 889 F.2d 1010, 1013-15 (11th Cir.1989) (applying catalyst test). Before applying this test, we must address a question that we have not yet explicitly resolved: whether the catalyst test continues to be viable in this circuit after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992). See Cullens v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 29 F.3d 1489, 1494-95 & n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (discussing question of whether dicta in Farrar eliminated the catalyst test; leaving question open because plaintiffs could not show that they met the catalyst test); Scientology II, 2 F.3d at 1513-14 (implicitly holding that the catalyst test survived Farrar by applying it after the opinion in Farrar was issued).³ Because the catalyst test remains viable and because the district court did not address evidence tending to show that Appellants were catalysts for the City's changes to the Original Ordinance, we vacate and remand for a reevaluation of Appellants' request for attorney's fees.

A. Viability of the catalyst test.

We have long held that a plaintiff who did not receive a formal judgment in its favor was a "prevailing party" if it met the elements of the catalyst test. See, e.g., Ketterle v. B.P. Oil, Inc., 909 F.2d 425, 429-30 (11th Cir.1990)⁴; Dunn, 889 F.2d at 1013-15; Royal Crown Cola Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 887 F.2d 1480, 1486 (11th Cir.1989); Posada, 716 F.2d at 1071. In the 1992 decision in Farrar, however, the Supreme Court stated:

[T]o qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim. The plaintiff must obtain an enforceable judgment against the defendant from whom fees are sought or comparable relief through a consent decree or settlement. Whatever relief the plaintiff secures must directly benefit him at the time of the judgment or settlement. Otherwise the judgment or settlement cannot be said to "affec[t] the behavior of the defendant toward the plaintiff." ... In short, a plaintiff "prevails" when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.

506 U.S. at 111-12, 113 S.Ct. at 573 (citations omitted).

This language, taken on face value, casts doubt on the viability of the catalyst test, which is only applied in the absence of a formal judgment, consent decree, or settlement. The majority of courts that have addressed the question, however, have found that Farrar, which does not mention the catalyst test and which did not present a question relating to the form of relief, does not bar the catalyst test.⁵

Like the majority of our sister circuit courts which have addressed this issue, and in accordance with our implicit holding in Scientology II, we hold that the catalyst test survived Farrar. While no Supreme Court case has ever affirmatively upheld the application of the catalyst test, the catalyst test accords well with long-held notions of prevailing parties. See Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760-61, 107 S.Ct. 2672, 2676, 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987) ("It is settled law, of course, that relief...