Wright v. State of Washington

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MATTHEW WRIGHT, CASE NO. C20-1452-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for attorney fees (Dkt. No. 16 53). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral 17 argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein. 18 After the Court dismissed with prejudice that portion of Plaintiff’s First Amended 19 Complaint containing Section 1983 claims, (see Dkt. Nos. 41, 48), Defendants moved for an 20 award of $9,000 in attorney fees. (Dkt. No. 53 at 1–5 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)).) They urge 21 the Court to use its discretion to grant their request, given the Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s 22 action was frivolous. (See id. at 1–3 (citing Dkt. No. 41 at 39).) 23 In an action asserting Section 1983 claims, a prevailing party may seek attorney fees. 42 24 U.S.C. § 1988(b). However, whether to grant such an award is an exercise of judicial discretion. 25 Id. While a Plaintiff’s unrelenting pursuit of frivolous claims can support such an award, see 26 Coverdell v. Dept. of Soc. and Health Services, State of Wash., 834 F.2d 758, 770 (9th Cir. 1 1987), the Court finds such an award inappropriate here. 2 As a threshold matter, the Court notes that Defense counsel’s declaration does not include 3 detailed time records. (See Dkt. No. 54.) In fact, the declaration appears to be an after-the fact 4 accounting of some portion of the time spent on this matter. (Id.) A request for attorney fees 5 should be supported by contemporaneous records of time spent. See Fischer v. SJB–P.D. Inc., 6 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). While Defendants’ evidentiary deficiency is not a basis to 7 deny their request in its entirety, it warrants at least a reduction in the fees sought. Id. But, in this 8 instance, when this deficiency is coupled with other deficiencies in Defendants’ request, the 9 Court’s concludes that no fees should be awarded. 10 Additional deficiencies in Defendants’ request include the following: First, some 11 undetermined portions of Defense counsel’s time relates to Plaintiff’s state-law causes of action, 12 which the Court never reached the merits of and are separate from Plaintiff’s Section 1983 13 claims. (See Dkt. Nos. 41 at 38, 48 at 4.) Second, Defendants failed to adequately mitigate the 14 fees they incurred. They could have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims before seeking 15 discovery, but did not. This is particularly curious since the Court ultimately concluded that 16 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state causes of action for violations of federal law. 17 (See Dkt. No. 48 at 2–3.) As a matter of equity, this counsels for at least a reduction in fees 18 awarded. And third, Defendants removed the case to this Court. (See Dkt. No. 1 (notice of 19 removal).) While this has no bearing on the application of 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), Defendant’s 20 strategic decision may have added to the fees incurred. But by how much is unknown, as detailed 21 records were not provided. 22 Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that an attorney fee award is 23 not warranted. Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 53) is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants may 24 pursue reimbursement of the fees incurred defending at least Plaintiff’s state law claims in state 25 court. 26 // 1 DATED this 4th day of April 2022. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26