City of Riverside v. Rivera
477 U.S. 561 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is not per se unreasonable simply because it exceeds the amount of damages recovered by the plaintiff. The amount of damages is one of many factors to consider, but the primary calculation is based on the lodestar method, which can be justified by the public interest served in vindicating important constitutional rights.
Facts:
- On August 1, 1975, eight Chicano individuals, including Santos and Jennie Rivera, were attending a party at the Rivera home in Riverside, California.
- A large number of unidentified police officers, acting without a warrant, broke up the party.
- The officers used tear gas and what was later determined to be 'unnecessary physical force.'
- The party was not creating a disturbance at the time of the police action.
- Four of the party guests were arrested.
- Criminal charges filed against the arrested individuals were ultimately dismissed for lack of probable cause.
Procedural Posture:
- The Riveras and other guests sued the City of Riverside, its Chief of Police, and 30 officers in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of 17 of the defendant officers.
- After a jury trial, verdicts were returned for the plaintiffs against the City and five individual officers, awarding a total of $33,350 in damages.
- The plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for attorney's fees, which the District Court granted in the full amount of $245,456.25.
- The City of Riverside (petitioners) appealed the fee award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed.
- Petitioners successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Hensley v. Eckerhart.
- On remand, the District Court reaffirmed its original fee award of $245,456.25.
- Petitioners again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which again affirmed the fee award.
- Petitioners again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 per se unreasonable if it exceeds the amount of damages recovered by the plaintiff in the underlying civil rights action?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. An award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is not per se unreasonable if it exceeds the amount of damages recovered. Congress enacted § 1988 to ensure victims of civil rights abuses could obtain competent counsel, recognizing that these cases vindicate important public and constitutional rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms. A rule of proportionality would undermine this purpose by discouraging attorneys from taking meritorious cases with low potential damage awards. The proper starting point for calculating fees is the 'lodestar' amount (reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable rate), and the amount of damages recovered is only one of many factors to consider in determining the reasonableness of the fee.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. Although the fee award appears unreasonable on its face, affirmance is required by the District Court’s detailed findings of fact, which are not clearly erroneous. The District Court found that the lawsuit involved a 'common core of facts,' that counsel achieved 'excellent results,' and that the case served the public interest by vindicating important constitutional rights against police misconduct motivated by hostility to the Chicano community. While the amount of damages is a critical factor, and a fee this disproportionate should be rare, the specific findings of the trial court in this instance justify the award.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. An award of $245,456.25 in attorney's fees for a recovery of $33,350 in damages is 'legal nonsense' and a grave abuse of discretion. It is implausible that a private party would have paid the two novice attorneys in this case $125 per hour in 1975. The court's decision will only add to public indignation over the excessive costs of litigation.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The District Court's finding that the attorneys 'reasonably' spent nearly 2,000 hours to recover $33,350 is clearly erroneous and turns § 1988 into a 'relief Act for lawyers.' The 'results obtained' are the most important factor under Hensley v. Eckerhart, and a reasonable fee must be proportional to what a fee-paying client would be willing to pay. The District Court failed to exercise 'billing judgment' and appeared to use the fee award to compensate for what it believed was an unjustly low jury verdict, which is improper. The reasonableness of hours expended must depend on the amount that can reasonably be expected to be recovered.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'lodestar' method as the primary basis for calculating attorney's fees under § 1988 and explicitly rejects a strict rule of proportionality between fees and damages. The ruling empowers district courts to award substantial fees in civil rights cases even where monetary recovery is low, reinforcing the 'private attorney general' concept where litigation serves a broader public interest. This creates a strong incentive for attorneys to take on civil rights cases that might otherwise be economically unfeasible, but it also opens the door to criticism, as articulated by the dissent, that it can lead to disproportionate, 'windfall' fees for lawyers and encourages litigation with minimal potential for actual damages.
Unlock the full brief for City of Riverside v. Rivera