Simply Because Plaintiff Only Obtained $1 In Damages Did Not Diminish His Forward-Looking Conduct Success In The Case.
In Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, No. 13-56973 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2016) (published), plaintiff brought an as-applied civil rights challenge to Laguna Beach’s ordinance containing restrictions on the use of amplification devices on public sidewalks (with Mr. Klein using amplification for a religious youth outreach program). After two successful appeals, he won nominal damages of $1 on three out of four claims, but Laguna Beach did soften its restrictions following the Ninth Circuit’s decision on one of the appeals. The district court did acknowledge Mr. Klein was the prevailing party, but denied fees altogether under Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) which allows a district judge to determine whether seeking lots of compensatory damages but getting little justifies no award under the circumstances under § 1988 (the civil rights fee-shifting statute).
The Ninth Circuit reversed.
The problem here is that Mr. Klein did get a measure of great success by obtaining Laguna Beach’s change in forward-looking conduct as to use of amplification devices. So, the focus on only the damages recovery was too myopic even under Farrar. (Accord, Sanchez v. City of Austin, 774 F.3d 873, 877 (5th Cir. 2014).) Reversed and remanded for another fee “shot” by prevailing Plaintiff.