Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc.
v.
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

532 U.S. 598 (2001)

What's Going On?

[Writ of certiorari] to review the denial of attorney's fees, provided for under a federal statute, in a case that was dismissed as moot.

Who's Who?

Petitioners     :

Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. – operator of care homes that provide assisted living to their residents (original plaintiff); et al.

Respondents :

West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, et al – the State of West Virginia, and associated agencies and individuals (original defendants).

Facts:

Petitioner Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. operates care homes that provide assisted living to their residents. Respondent State of West Virginia ordered Petitioner to close its residential care facilities because Petitioner's residents were not capable of “self-preservation”—being able to remove themselves from situations involving imminent danger—as required by state law. Upon receiving the order, Petitioner Buckhannon brought suit against Respondents, the State of West Virginia, and associated agencies and individuals, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated homes and residents. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief that the “self-preservation” requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the case was pending, the West Virginia legislature eliminated the “self-preservation” requirement and Respondents successfully moved to dismiss the case as moot. Petitioners then requested attorney's fees under an FHAA provision providing for such costs for the “prevailing party” in a lawsuit. Petitioners argued that they were entitled to attorney's fees under the catalyst theory. [The district court rejected Petitioners' argument for attorney's fees and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.]

Issue:

May a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct, be considered a “prevailing party” for the purposes of federal statutes that award attorney's fees and costs?

Decision:

No. The term “prevailing party” is a legal term of art denoting a party that has been awarded relief by the court. Enforceable judgments on the merits and court-ordered consent decrees afford the type of relief by which a party may be considered a “prevailing party” for the purposes of being awarded attorney's fees. The catalyst theory, however, allows an award where there is no judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties. Although a defendant's voluntary change in conduct may fulfill the plaintiff's ultimate goal in the lawsuit, such defendant's conduct lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change. Petitioners argue that the legislative history of federal legislation regarding attorney's fees requires a broad construction of the term “prevailing party;” however, in light of the American Rule that attorney's fees will not be awarded absent explicit statutory authority, such legislative history is insufficient to affect the accepted meaning of the statutory term. Additionally, accepting the catalyst theory would most likely result in a second litigation requiring a significant factual inquiry. This court has held that a request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation. Affirmed.

Basic Rule:

A party may only be considered a “prevailing party” for the purposes recovering attorney's fees and costs under applicable federal statutes if that party has secured a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree

Dissent:

The Court's insistence that the results of a lawsuit be memorialized in a court entry as a prerequisite to a party's receipt of statutorily authorized attorney's fees allows a defendant to escape a statutory obligation to pay a plaintiff's counsel fees, even though the suit's merit led the defendant to give the plaintiff the redress sought in the complaint. The catalyst theory is a key component of federal fee-shifting statutes, and there is no justification for the Court's narrow construction of the term “prevailing party.”

Terms:

Catalyst Theory :

Theory under which a plaintiff is considered a "prevailing party" if it achieves its desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct.

Imprimatur :

A mark of approval.

Moot :

Without significance.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us