PER CURIAM:
More than two decades ago, this class action was brought on behalf of Medicaid-eligible children in Texas alleging that the State was failing to provide adequate Early, Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) services. The EPSDT program focuses on preventative health care for indigent children, especially routine checkups and necessary follow up care. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d(r). Portions of an original Consent Decree and a 2007 Corrective Action Order are still in effect. But the district court recently concluded that one of the eleven corrective plans from the 2007 Order — one requiring Texas to provide annual reports on the number of eligible children receiving medical and dental checkups and to take steps to boost compliance in counties that lag behind statewide participation rates— was no longer needed. That decision was made in response to motions filed pursuant to a procedure the 2007 Corrective Action Order set forth in which, after four years, the parties would confer about the need for further action. If the parties were unable to reach agreement, as turned out to be the case, the “dispute [would] be resolved by the Court.”
Plaintiffs nonetheless sought attorney fees incurred both in preparing their motion and opposing the one filed by Defendants. They asserted entitlement to fees both as a “prevailing party” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and as a matter of contractual right under a fee order that accompanied the 2007 Corrective Action Order. The district court agreed with Plaintiffs and awarded the full amount of requested fees without engaging in a reasonableness analysis that considered the Plaintiffs’ degree of success.
For the reasons that follow, we agree that Plaintiffs had an entitlement to fees as the round of motion practice was the final step contemplated under the 2007 Corrective Action Order for which they were the prevailing party. As with a typical fee request, however, the district court should have engaged in a reasonableness analysis that included evaluating the party’s degree of success.
I.
Only a few points about the lengthy procedural history of this case — which has included numerous appeals and a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court — need be de[252]*252scribed for the discrete attorneys’ fee question we face. See Frew v. Janek, 780 F.3d 320, 323-27 (5th Cir. 2015) (providing more detailed history of the litigation).
In 1996, the district court entered a consent decree aimed at “enhance[ing] the availability of health care services, eliminate[ing] barriers that have the effect of preventing access to services, and more effectively inform[ing] recipients that services are available and important to their current and future health.” The Decree dictated that the state meet a range of objectives. Some examples include: creating outreach units to spread information about EPSDT; improving provider training on a number of issues, such as coverage of mental health screening and services for teenagers; and implementing accountability measures.
More than a decade later, in 2007, Plaintiffs successfully obtained the agreed Corrective Action Order. The order resulted from Plaintiffs’ motions to enforce and to find Defendants in violation of the original decree.1 Each of the plans in the 2007 Order deals with a specific issue, such as transportation, health care provider training, and outreach efforts.
At the same time it entered the 2007 Corrective Action Order, the district court entered an order addressing attorney’s fees (2007 Fee Order). The 2007 Fee Order has three paragraphs. The first starts with “Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees, costs and expenses related to their counsel’s work on this case.” It goes on to note that such fees “include” those listed in a 2004 order and those incurred through entry of the 2007 Fee Order, but does not have any express limiting language. The last sentence specifies that “[although Defendants agree not to challenge Plaintiffs’ entitlement to fees, Defendants may challenge the amount of fees that are due.” The second paragraph applies to “fees, costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel through the date of the Court’s ruling on the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Corrective Order.” The third applies to “procedures for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to be incurred following the date of the Court’s ruling on the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Corrective Action Order.” Much of the debate that has ensued about the 2007 Fee Order concerns the following: Does the entitlement to fees discussed in Paragraph One apply to all “work on the case” with the other paragraphs then just describing different procedure for obtaining those fees, as Plaintiffs contend? Or, as Defendants contend, does the first paragraph acknowledge a right to fees only through entry of the 2007 Corrective Action Order pursuant to the steps described in the second paragraph?
This question about interpretation of the 2007 Fee Order arose in connection with the provision of the 2007 Corrective Action Order focused on “Check Up Reports and Plans for Lagging Counties.” After the plan details the requirements concerning checkups and boosting participation in counties with low levels of compliance, its final provision states:
Beginning four years from the date of entry of the corrective action orders (“order entry date”), counsel will confer to determine what further action, if any, is required. If the parties agree, they will so report to the Court within 120 days following the fourth anniversary of the order entry date. If the parties can[253]*253not agree within 90 days of the fourth anniversary of the order entry date, the dispute will be resolved by the Court. If the parties cannot agree, either party may file a motion within 30 days of the completion of discussion among counsel.
Following this procedure, both sides conferred regarding the need for further action related to the checkup reports and lagging- counties. When they did not reach agreement, both submitted motions to the district court. Plaintiffs sought further action regarding checkup reports and the lagging counties; Defendants sought to modify both the Corrective Action Order and Consent Decree under Rule 60(b)(5) to eliminate the provisions in both that related to checkup reports or lagging counties, asserting they had met all requirements. The district court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion, and granted the Defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling.
Despite coming out on the losing end, Plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees for the time spent briefing both motions. The district court ruled that the Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the 2007 Fee Order, and emphasized that the Plaintiffs were the prevailing party both in obtaining the original consent decree and the corrective action order. The court ordered that Defendants pay Plaintiffs’ their requested $129,140.00 for work on the contested motions. The court rejected Defendants request to analyze the reasonableness of the fees based on the degree of Plaintiffs’ success, finding that because the basis of the fees was the agreed-upon Corrective Action Order and 2007 Fee Order, the “success or failure of the work” did not “determinen payment in this instance.”2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PER CURIAM:
More than two decades ago, this class action was brought on behalf of Medicaid-eligible children in Texas alleging that the State was failing to provide adequate Early, Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) services. The EPSDT program focuses on preventative health care for indigent children, especially routine checkups and necessary follow up care. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d(r). Portions of an original Consent Decree and a 2007 Corrective Action Order are still in effect. But the district court recently concluded that one of the eleven corrective plans from the 2007 Order — one requiring Texas to provide annual reports on the number of eligible children receiving medical and dental checkups and to take steps to boost compliance in counties that lag behind statewide participation rates— was no longer needed. That decision was made in response to motions filed pursuant to a procedure the 2007 Corrective Action Order set forth in which, after four years, the parties would confer about the need for further action. If the parties were unable to reach agreement, as turned out to be the case, the “dispute [would] be resolved by the Court.”
Plaintiffs nonetheless sought attorney fees incurred both in preparing their motion and opposing the one filed by Defendants. They asserted entitlement to fees both as a “prevailing party” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and as a matter of contractual right under a fee order that accompanied the 2007 Corrective Action Order. The district court agreed with Plaintiffs and awarded the full amount of requested fees without engaging in a reasonableness analysis that considered the Plaintiffs’ degree of success.
For the reasons that follow, we agree that Plaintiffs had an entitlement to fees as the round of motion practice was the final step contemplated under the 2007 Corrective Action Order for which they were the prevailing party. As with a typical fee request, however, the district court should have engaged in a reasonableness analysis that included evaluating the party’s degree of success.
I.
Only a few points about the lengthy procedural history of this case — which has included numerous appeals and a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court — need be de[252]*252scribed for the discrete attorneys’ fee question we face. See Frew v. Janek, 780 F.3d 320, 323-27 (5th Cir. 2015) (providing more detailed history of the litigation).
In 1996, the district court entered a consent decree aimed at “enhance[ing] the availability of health care services, eliminate[ing] barriers that have the effect of preventing access to services, and more effectively inform[ing] recipients that services are available and important to their current and future health.” The Decree dictated that the state meet a range of objectives. Some examples include: creating outreach units to spread information about EPSDT; improving provider training on a number of issues, such as coverage of mental health screening and services for teenagers; and implementing accountability measures.
More than a decade later, in 2007, Plaintiffs successfully obtained the agreed Corrective Action Order. The order resulted from Plaintiffs’ motions to enforce and to find Defendants in violation of the original decree.1 Each of the plans in the 2007 Order deals with a specific issue, such as transportation, health care provider training, and outreach efforts.
At the same time it entered the 2007 Corrective Action Order, the district court entered an order addressing attorney’s fees (2007 Fee Order). The 2007 Fee Order has three paragraphs. The first starts with “Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees, costs and expenses related to their counsel’s work on this case.” It goes on to note that such fees “include” those listed in a 2004 order and those incurred through entry of the 2007 Fee Order, but does not have any express limiting language. The last sentence specifies that “[although Defendants agree not to challenge Plaintiffs’ entitlement to fees, Defendants may challenge the amount of fees that are due.” The second paragraph applies to “fees, costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel through the date of the Court’s ruling on the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Corrective Order.” The third applies to “procedures for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to be incurred following the date of the Court’s ruling on the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Corrective Action Order.” Much of the debate that has ensued about the 2007 Fee Order concerns the following: Does the entitlement to fees discussed in Paragraph One apply to all “work on the case” with the other paragraphs then just describing different procedure for obtaining those fees, as Plaintiffs contend? Or, as Defendants contend, does the first paragraph acknowledge a right to fees only through entry of the 2007 Corrective Action Order pursuant to the steps described in the second paragraph?
This question about interpretation of the 2007 Fee Order arose in connection with the provision of the 2007 Corrective Action Order focused on “Check Up Reports and Plans for Lagging Counties.” After the plan details the requirements concerning checkups and boosting participation in counties with low levels of compliance, its final provision states:
Beginning four years from the date of entry of the corrective action orders (“order entry date”), counsel will confer to determine what further action, if any, is required. If the parties agree, they will so report to the Court within 120 days following the fourth anniversary of the order entry date. If the parties can[253]*253not agree within 90 days of the fourth anniversary of the order entry date, the dispute will be resolved by the Court. If the parties cannot agree, either party may file a motion within 30 days of the completion of discussion among counsel.
Following this procedure, both sides conferred regarding the need for further action related to the checkup reports and lagging- counties. When they did not reach agreement, both submitted motions to the district court. Plaintiffs sought further action regarding checkup reports and the lagging counties; Defendants sought to modify both the Corrective Action Order and Consent Decree under Rule 60(b)(5) to eliminate the provisions in both that related to checkup reports or lagging counties, asserting they had met all requirements. The district court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion, and granted the Defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling.
Despite coming out on the losing end, Plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees for the time spent briefing both motions. The district court ruled that the Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the 2007 Fee Order, and emphasized that the Plaintiffs were the prevailing party both in obtaining the original consent decree and the corrective action order. The court ordered that Defendants pay Plaintiffs’ their requested $129,140.00 for work on the contested motions. The court rejected Defendants request to analyze the reasonableness of the fees based on the degree of Plaintiffs’ success, finding that because the basis of the fees was the agreed-upon Corrective Action Order and 2007 Fee Order, the “success or failure of the work” did not “determinen payment in this instance.”2
On appeal, the parties focus on two different bases for attorneys’ fees: (1) a contractual basis rooted in whether the first paragraph of the 2007 Fee Order entitles Plaintiffs to permanent fees for the duration of this litigation; and (2) a statutory-basis dependent on whether Plaintiffs are a “prevailing party” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The latter implicates differing views among the circuits over the bounds of postdecree fee entitlement. Defendants also argue that even if fees were generally available on either a contractual or statutory basis, the district court should have assessed the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ position and their degree of success.
II.
The court has jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (holding interlocutory orders appealable if they: “conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”). Whether an interim fee award meets the requirements of the collateral order doctrine is a ease-by-case question. Such awards are generally appealable, however, in cases like this one in which the underlying litigation involves a consent decree of indefinite duration. Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761, 766-67 (5th Cir. 1996).
The Court reviews de novo the question of whether Plaintiffs are “prevailing parties” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Davis v. Abbott, 781 F.3d 207, 213 (5th Cir. 2015). The Corrective Action Order and 2007 Fee Order are interpreted according to contract law. See Dean v. City of Shreveport, [254]*254438 F.3d 448, 460 (6th Cir. 2006) (“When interpreting a consent decree, general principles of contract interpretation govern.”); Ergon-W. Virginia, Inc. v. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade, 706 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2013) (explaining that unambiguous contracts are reviewed de novo-, a district court’s interpretation of an ambiguous contract that uses extrinsic evidence is reviewed for clear error). The actual award of attorneys’ fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with factual findings subject to review for clear error and legal conclusions reviewed de novo. Davis, 781 F.3d at 213.
III.
We first consider the statutory argument for fees based on “prevailing party” status. Attorneys’ fees for the victorious plaintiff have become a staple of modern civil rights litigation. Section 1988(b) provides that for any action or proceeding to enforce a given set of civil rights laws, the court may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Although the language is discretionary, the Supreme Court has held that prevailing parties should be awarded reasonable fees, absent exceptional circumstances. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (“[A] prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.”) (internal citation omitted). A party that successfully obtains a settlement agreement that is made enforceable through a consent decree is a prevailing party. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001), citing Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); see also El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 591 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting that obtaining a consent decree may be the basis for awarding attorneys’ fees). Fees may also be recoverable for successful work done after entry of the consent decree that is done to enforce the decree. Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986) (holding that a party may be entitled to attorneys’ fees for postdecree enforcement work under the fee-shifting provision of the Clean Air Act, analogizing and relying in part on lower court decisions allowing fees under § 1988 for “post-judgment monitoring”); Walker, 99 F.3d at 767 (“Monitoring a consent judgment previously entered entitles a plaintiff to attorneys’ fees ... Plaintiffs may recover attorneys’ fees for actions enforcing an earlier judgment, if they prevail in such enforcement. Actions to prevent the modification of an earlier judgment are sufficiently similar for the same reasoning to apply...”).
Under this established law, the district court repeatedly awarded fees to Plaintiffs without opposition for their attorneys’ time spent obtaining the original decree and the 2007 Corrective Action Order, as well as for monitoring and compliance work contemplated by those orders. See Appellants’ Br. 18 (arguing that Plaintiffs’ counsel is not entitled to fees “for any of their work on Lagging Counties after Plaintiffs’ attorneys began drafting their motion for further action in January 2012”); What at is at issue here is the fees related to their work drafting the motion for further action and defending against the state’s motion. Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in extending the defendants’ obligations under the lagging counties provision, they are not a “prevailing” party.
Defendants would have a strong argument if the Plaintiffs’ unsuccessful attempt .to extend the lagging counties provisions was not rooted in a procedure Plaintiffs [255]*255bargained for and obtained in the 2007 Corrective Action Order. Two circuits have taken a restrictive approach to fee requests for postdecree work that proves unsuccessful. In Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 356 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit rejected a request for fees related to work, taking place between 1994 and 2001 that unsuccessfully opposed the City’s motion to modify a consent decree entered in the 1970s and also failed to obtain a finding that the City was in contempt of the decree. Id, at 768-69. Although the court suggested that fees for postdecree monitoring efforts may be recoverable when the consent decree requires that a party fill a specified monitoring function, the decree at issue did not provide for such monitoring. Id. at 772 (“Neither the original nor the modified decree imposes on [Plaintiff class’s] lawyers any duty of operating the compliance machinery. They could.have walked away from the case as soon as the consent decree was approved confident that a compliance machinery in which they had been given no role had been established.”). The Sixth Circuit took a similar approach in finding that fees may be awarded only for postdecree work that is both “necessary to enforce the prior order and result[s] in a subsequent court order or agency determination that at the very least secures plaintiffs’ initial success in obtaining the consent decree.” Binta B. ex rel. S.A. v. Gordon, 710 F.3d 608, 625 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). But again, the work for which fees were sought and denied in that case — including an unsuccessful motion for an injunction in a separate but related case, work training counsel from other health advocacy organizations, and lobbying with legislators when opposing counsel was not present and did not authorize such efforts — was not provided for in the earlier consent decree.3 Id, at 629-34, 636-39.
Both the Sixth and Seventh Circuit find support for their view in the “material alteration of the legal relationship” standard the Supreme Court articulated in rejecting a “catalyst” theory for attorneys’ fees in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604-05, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). See Alliance to End Repression, 356 F.3d at 771 (noting that “[mjonitoring may reduce the incidence of violations of a decree, but if it does not produce a judgment or order, then under the rule of Buckhannon it is not compensable,” and specifically holding that compensation for “piggyback monitoring” efforts by counsel that are not required by a court order “do not survive Buckhannon”); Binta B., 710 F.3d at 624 (concluding that Buckhannon does not go so far as to prohibit fees for any postde-cree work that does not result in a change to the parties’ legal relationship, but it must be “accordfed] ... some weight in the post-decree context”). Other circuits, however, do not see Buckhannon as curtailing preexisting case law on postdecree fees and thus treat such requests more favorably.4 See Prison Legal News v. [256]*256Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 451-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing how Buckhannon did not overturn Delaware Valley nor require the Ninth Circuit to change how it assessed post-judgment monitoring); Johnson v. City of Tulsa, Okla., 489 F.3d 1089, 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (rejecting what it took as Alliance’s requirement that post-decree work must result in a material change in order to entitle a party to fees).
But this is not a case in which Plaintiffs simply ended up being unhappy with the terms of, or compliance with, a consent decree and sought to modify it or extend it in a manner not contemplated by the decree. We thus need not decide which approach of our sister circuits should be followed in deciding the extent to which “prevailing party” status obtained in an early stage of a lawsuit continues to apply to unanticipated disputes arising later in the case. Plaintiffs here seek attorneys’ fees for a discrete set of motions contemplated in the 2007 Corrective Action Order for which they indisputably obtained prevailing party status. Negotiations and motion practice concerning the status of the checkup reports and lagging counties provision come 2011 was part of what Plaintiffs achieved ■ as a result of their 2007 success. This established framework makes the motions at issue more like a compliance or dispute resolution procedure that was a part of the parties’ agreement than a new, distinct motion to obtain a form of relief beyond what was established in the original decree. Defendants argue that unlike the mandatory negotiation provision, the Corrective Action Order did not require the filing of a motion in 2012, and Plaintiffs should thus not receive fees when their decision to file a motion ended up not being a sound one.5 At a minimum, however, part of what Plaintiffs achieved in 2007 was the opportunity to have the Court decide whether the “checkup reports and lagging counties” plan should continue. Prevailing party status obtained in 2007 thus extended to the final step contemplated in the Corrective Action Order for the lagging counties provision. See Walker, 99 F.3d at 767 (“Monitoring a consent judgment previously entered entitles a plaintiff to attorneys’ fees.”). That the work arises out of a discrete procedure expressly anticipated in the Corrective Action Order also eliminates the concern expressed by the Sixth and Seventh Circuits that early success in institutional litigation could create a “gravy train” or “cottage industry” of never-ending fee requests for civil rights attorneys regardless of what they accomplish.6 See Binta B., [257]*257710 F.3d at 625; Alliance to End Repression, 356 F.3d at 772. Our reasoning would not extend, for example, to a motion filed by Plaintiffs in 2017 seeking to reinstitute the “lagging counties” provision.
IV.
Of course, prevailing party status does not automatically entitle a party to the full amount of attorneys’ fees incurred. Courts review such requests for reasonableness, which includes consideration of the success achieved. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (“If ... a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount.... [T]he most critical factor [in determining a reasonable fee] is the degree of success obtained.”).
The district court did not engage in that typical analysis, likely because it seemed to conclude that Plaintiffs were entitled to fees based not just on “prevailing party” status as to the 2007 Corrective Action Order alone, but also as a contractual right under the 2007 Fee Order. And it apparently read that agreement as providing a contractual entitlement to fees not subject to reasonableness review.
Because we have determined that Plaintiffs are a prevailing party for purposes of the two motions at issue as a result of their success in obtaining that procedure as part of the 2007 Corrective Action Order, we do not reach the full question of whether the separate 2007 Fee Order entitles them to prevailing party status throughout this litigation.7 To the extent the district court read the 2007 Fee Order as providing a right to fees not subject to typical court scrutiny, however, we must consider at least that aspect of the ruling in deciding Defendants’ back-up argument that the fees should have been reviewed for reasonableness.
We conclude that even if the 2007 Fee Order entitles Plaintiffs to attorneys’ fees throughout this litigation, it does not exempt the requested fees from the judicial scrutiny for reasonableness that typically applies to prevailing party fee requests. The 2007 Fee Order requires that if the parties cannot agree on attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, Plaintiffs shall submit their motion for fees to the court. What would be the point of motion practice if Plaintiffs have the right to full fees without ordinary court scrutiny? If this were the parties’ agreement, Defendants would be indefinitely required to pay for any and all fees for work related to the Corrective Action Order that Plaintiffs choose to incur, no matter how unreasonable or unsuccessful their efforts may be. Indeed, the district court acknowledged that it must review whether the time spent and rates charged for the motion practice was reasonable but Defendants did not object on either ground; the court simply did not consider the degree of success. We see little basis for finding that the agreement allows some aspects of ordinary fee [258]*258scrutiny but not others. Indeed, courts often engage in full reasonableness review, which includes considering the result obtained as one factor, even for attorney fee awards provided by contract. See, e.g., Natco Ltd. P’ship v. Moran Towing of Fla., Inc., 267 F.3d 1190, 1196 (11th Cir. 2001); Graceland Fruit, Inc. v. KIC Chemicals, Inc., 320 Fed.Appx. 323, 325-328 (6th Cir. 2008); Malin Int’l Ship Repair & Drydock, Inc. v. M/V SEIM SWORDFISH, 611 F.Supp.2d 627, 634-35 (E.D. La. 2009). Absent more direct language waiving the reasonableness review that ordinarily applies to prevailing party fees, Plaintiffs’ position is not a plausible reading of the order. See Robert L. Rossi, Attorneys’ Fees § 9:36 (2016) (“When an award of attorneys’s fees is authorized by contract, the fee awarded must be reasonable even in the absence of a provision requiring that the fee be reasonable.”); Spirtas Co. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa., 555 F.3d 647, 653 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that when the fee provision does not contain a reasonableness requirement, “[o]ur court and Missouri’s courts ... generally will infer a reasonableness requirement in all contractual fee provisions as a matter of public policy”). The district court therefore erred in not considering the degree of success among the many factors that are assessed in determining whether prevailing party attorneys’ fees are reasonable.
$ ¡K * * *
We conclude that Plaintiffs were the prevailing party for purposes of the two motions at issue as court consideration of them was part of the relief they successfully obtained in the 2007 Corrective Action Order. But because the district court did not consider the degree of success in analyzing the'reasonableness of the fees requested, the interim fee order is VACATED and REMANDED for the district judge to conduct this inquiry.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.