Sotomura v. Hawaii County, s. 80-4488
| Decision Date | 07 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 80-4488,80-4498,s. 80-4488 |
| Citation | 679 F.2d 152 |
| Parties | Joseph Yuki SOTOMURA and Grace Fumiye Sotomura, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF HAWAII, et al., Defendants, and George R. Ariyoshi, Governor of Hawaii, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Wayne Minami, Atty. Gen., Chelun Huang, Jackie Mahi Erickson, Deputy Attys. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, Clifford H. F. Lum, Corp. Counsel, Bruce Ito, Deputy Corp. Counsel, County of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii, for defendants-appellants/cross-appellees.
Clinton Ashford and Douglas MacDougal, of Ashford & Wriston, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKOPIL and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
The Sotomuras obtained a judgment in their civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants appealed. After briefs were filed on the merits and on the Sotomuras' motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, we granted the motion to dismiss. The Sotomuras now seek attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for services performed in connection with the appeal. The Sotomuras are "prevailing parties," a prerequisite to such an award, even though they prevailed by obtaining dismissal of the appeal as untimely rather than affirmance on the merits. Hastings v. Maine-Endwell Central School District, New York, 676 F.2d 893, 896 (2d Cir. 1982). Cf. Maher v. Gayne, 448 U.S. 122, 129, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 2575, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Williams v. Alioto, 625 F.2d 845, 847-48 (9th Cir. 1980).
Normally fees are not awardable to a party who prevails on appeal only because of erroneous procedural or evidentiary rulings below. Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 759, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 1990, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). But this court's ruling on the motion to dismiss was not interlocutory but final and, in effect, conclusively determined the "substantial rights of the parties." Id. at 757, 100 S.Ct. at 1989. Our dismissal contemplates no future proceedings involving the merits of the controversy which could change the favorable result obtained by the Sotomuras. Swietlowich v. County of Buchs, 620 F.2d 33, 34 (3d Cir. 1980). Viewing the litigation as a whole, Gurule v. Wilson, 635 F.2d 782, 791 (10th Cir. 1981), the Sotomuras successfully defended the district court judgment in their favor and are "prevailing parties" under section 1988.
The Sotomuras seek $34,941.40 in attorneys' fees. Although the issues were complex,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feher v. Department of Labor and Indus. Relations
...attorneys' fees. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E. O.C., 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978); Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 679 F.2d 152 (9th Cir.1982); Department of Ed. v. Valenzuela, 524 F.Supp. 261 (D.Haw. 1981). Title VII allows a prevailing party to receive from the los......
-
Cooper v. Dupnik
...are the prevailing parties, they are entitled, at our discretion, to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 679 F.2d 152 (9th Cir.1982) (attorneys fees may be awarded at the appellate as well as the trial level). However, successful defendants in civil righ......
-
Doe v. Terhune
...succeeded in obtaining relief on the merits, i.e. plaintiff's employer was not notified of his conviction. In Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 679 F.2d 152, 152-53 (9th Cir.1982), the Ninth Circuit addressed a related issue. After the plaintiffs in Sotomura obtained a judgment in the district ......
-
Jensen v. City of San Jose, 83-2473
...awarded fees upon a procedural dismissal of a case, if the case were brought frivolously and vexatiously. In Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 679 F.2d 152 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), the panel granted plaintiffs fees for services on appeal when defendant's case was dismissed as untimely. The ......