matalon v. hynnes, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Matalon v. Hynnes, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 15- 1372

SCOTT MATALON,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee,

v.

J OSEPH HYNNES and MARY ANN O' NEI LL,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s,

CI TY OF BOSTON,

Def endant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Leo T. Sor oki n, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Howar d, Chi ef J udge,Sel ya and St ahl , Ci r cui t J udges.

Ni col e M. O' Connor , Assi st ant Cor por at i on Counsel , Ci t y ofBost on Law Depar t ment , wi t h whomEugene L. O' Fl ahert y, Corporat i onCounsel , and Kat her i ne N. Gal l e, Assi st ant Cor por at i on Counsel ,wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Rober t S. Si nshei mer , wi t h whom Wesl ey B. St oker andSi nshei mer & Associ at es wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

November 18, 2015


2/25

- 2 -

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Thi s case r equi r es us t o i nspect

t he t opogr aphy of t he sel dom- used except i on t o t he Four t h

Amendment ' s warr ant r equi r ement f or warr ant l ess sear ches by pol i ce

of f i cer s exer ci si ng communi t y car et aki ng f unct i ons. The case

ar i ses i n t he cont ext of a war r ant l ess ent r y by t he appel l ant s

( Bost on pol i ce of f i cer s) i nt o a dwel l i ng i n t he Br i ght on

nei ghborhood of Bost on, Massachuset t s. The pol i ce l acked pr obabl e

cause; t he j ur y f ound t hat t hei r i nt r usi on i nt o t he dwel l i ng was

not j ust i f i ed ei t her by exi gent ci r cumst ances or by any ot her

const i t ut i onal l y accept abl e r at i onal e; and an awar d of damages

agai nst t he of f i cer who had spearheaded t he ent r y i nt o t he house

ensued.

The af f ect ed appel l ant , r el yi ng on t he doct r i ne of

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y and t he communi t y car et aki ng except i on, i nvi t es

us t o set asi de t hi s ver di ct . Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, we

decl i ne her i nvi t at i on. We al so r ej ect t he appel l ant s' cont ent i on

t hat t he di str i ct cour t ' s awar d of at t or neys' f ees i s i nf i r m

because t he cour t f ai l ed t o di st i ngui sh bet ween "cor e" and "non-

cor e" wor k per f or med by t he pr evai l i ng par t y' s l awyer s.

Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he j udgment bel ow.

I. BACKGROUND

On Sept ember 29, 2010, t he Bost on pol i ce r ecei ved a

r epor t of a robber y f r om Fel i x August o- Per ez, t he manager of a

r est aur ant l ocat ed at 48 Har var d Avenue. Of f i cer El vi n Avi l es


3/25

- 3 -

r esponded, and August o- Per ez r ecount ed t hat he had di scover ed a

bl ack mal e removi ng money f r om a saf e i n t he basement of t he

r est aur ant . August o- Per ez t ol d Avi l es t hat he had chased t he t hi ef

out of t he back door of t he r est aur ant and al ong Far r i ngt on Avenue

( whi ch r uns per pendi cul ar t o Harvar d Avenue) . The r obber t ur ned

l ef t on Hi ghgat e St r eet ( whi ch r uns r oughl y par al l el t o Har var d

Avenue) and then t ur ned r i ght , r unni ng i nt o t he back yar d of a

house at 14 Far r i ngt on Avenue. Avi l es radi oed t o ot her of f i cer s

t hat t he suspect was l ast seen i n t he ar ea of Far r i ngt on Avenue

and Hi ghgat e St r eet .

The appel l ant s Sergeant Mar y Ann O' Nei l l and Of f i cer

J oseph Hynnes wer e among t he of f i cer s who r esponded. Hynnes

t est i f i ed that when he ar r i ved at Far r i ngt on Avenue, an

uni dent i f i ed wi t ness r eport ed seei ng a bl ack mal e r unni ng down a

wal kway bet ween 14 Far r i ngt on Avenue and 16 Far r i ngt on Avenue.

Af t er r ecei vi ng t hi s i nf or mat i on, Hynnes and hi s par t ner pr oceeded

down t he wal kway bet ween t he houses. They encount ered O' Nei l l .

Though O' Nei l l ' s r ecol l ect i on at t r i al was hazy, she

r ecal l ed "a vi ct i m" poi nt i ng i n t he di r ect i on of 16 Far r i ngt on

Avenue and Hynnes t el l i ng her about what he had l earned. O' Nei l l

t hen mount ed t he porch of t he dwel l i ng at 16 Farr i ngt on Avenue

( whi ch f aced t he wal kway) . Looki ng t hr ough a gl ass pane on t he

cl osed ext er i or door , she coul d see t wo open door s, t he f i r st

l eadi ng i nt o the mai n l i vi ng area and t he second appar ent l y l eadi ng


4/25

- 4 -

i nt o t he cel l ar . O' Nei l l t r i ed t he knob of t he ext er i or door and

f ound i t unl ocked. She t hen r ang t he bel l , knocked on t he door ,

and cal l ed i nt o t he house, al l t o no avai l . Hynnes t ol d O' Nei l l

t hat he t hought t hat he heard f oot st eps emanat i ng f r om t he second

f l oor of t he dwel l i ng. 1

O' Nei l l cal l ed f or a cani ne uni t . Af t er a wai t of at

l east t en mi nut es, t he cani ne uni t ar r i ved and a sear ch of t he

r esi dence ensued. The onl y per son i nsi de was t he owner , pl ai nt i f f -

appel l ee Scot t Matal on, who had been sl eepi ng i n an upst ai r s

bedr oom. Di spl eased by t he i nt r usi on, t he pl ai nt i f f had wor ds

wi t h t he of f i cer s and was event ual l y ar r est ed by Hynnes.

Af t er t he pl ai nt i f f ' s acqui t t al on cri mi nal char ges

r esul t i ng f r om hi s arr est , he i nvoked 42 U. S. C. 1983 and sued

O' Nei l l , Hynnes, and t he Ci t y of Bost on i n t he f eder al di st r i ct

cour t . As r el evant her e, he char ged O' Nei l l wi t h vi ol at i ng hi s

1A f ew of t he f act s r ecount ed t o thi s poi nt t he uni dent i f i edwi t ness' s st at ement s t o Hynnes, O' Nei l l ' s cl ai m t hat ef f or t s wer emade to announce the pr esence of of f i cers bef ore ent er i ng t hedwel l i ng, and Hynnes' s st atement t hat he had heard f oot st eps wer e di sput ed at t r i al . The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t hese f act swer e not par t of t he f act ual mosai c t o be consi der ed i n r ul i ng onO' Nei l l ' s mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. See Mat al on v.O' Nei l l ( Matal on I ) , No. 13- 10001, 2015 WL 1137808, at *2 nn. 2- 3( D. Mass. Mar . 13, 2015) . That r ul i ng was cor r ect . See, e. g. ,I acobucci v. Boul t er , 193 F. 3d 14, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( expl ai ni ngt hat when r evi ewi ng a cl ai m of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y post - t r i al , t heevi dence must be const r ued i n t he l i ght most f avorabl e t o t hej ury' s ver di ct ) . Never t hel ess , we i ncl ude t hem here, as t hey donot af f ect t he r esul t of t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y anal ysi s.


5/25

- 5 -

ci vi l r i ght s t hr ough an unr easonabl e search and charged Hynnes

wi t h vi ol at i ng hi s ci vi l r i ght s t hr ough t he use of excessi ve f or ce.

Fol l owi ng a f our - day t r i al , t he j ur y f ound f or t he pl ai nt i f f on

bot h of t hese cl ai ms and awar ded hi m $50, 000 i n damages. 2

At t he cl ose of al l t he evi dence, O' Nei l l moved f or

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw based on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y and t he

communi t y caret aki ng except i on t o t he Four t h Amendment ' s war r ant

r equi r ement . The cour t r eser ved deci si on and O' Nei l l r enewed t he

mot i on post - ver di ct . She al so moved f or a new t r i al , posi t i ng

i nst r uct i onal er r or . The di st r i ct cour t deni ed bot h of her

mot i ons. See Mat al on v. O' Nei l l ( Mat al on I ) , No. 13- 10001, 2015

WL 1137808, at *8 (D. Mass. Mar . 13, 2015) .

Havi ng pr evai l ed, t he pl ai nt i f f moved f or at t or neys'

f ees and cost s. See 42 U. S. C. 1988( b) . The di st r i ct cour t

gr ant ed t he mot i on, awar di ng t he pl ai nt i f f t he sumof $134, 642. 35.

See Matal on v. O' Nei l l ( Matal on I I ) , No. 13- 10001, 2015 WL 1206343

( D. Mass. Mar . 17, 2015) . Thi s t i mel y appeal ensued.

II. ANALYSIS

O' Nei l l at t acks t he deni al of bot h her mot i on f or

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw and her mot i on f or a new t r i al . O' Nei l l

2 Hynnes has not chal l enged the excessi ve f or ce ver di ct , sowe omi t any di scussi on of t he f act s pecul i ar t o t hat cl ai m.


6/25

- 6 -

and Hynnes j oi nt l y at t ack t he amount of t he f ee award. We di scuss

t hese cl ai ms of er r or sequent i al l y.

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law.

We revi ew t he deni al of a mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er

of l aw de novo, vi ewi ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most hospi t abl e

t o t he j ur y' s ver di ct and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n

f avor of t hat ver di ct . See Freseni us Med. Car e Hol ds. , I nc. v.

Uni t ed St at es, 763 F. 3d 64, 67- 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . I n conduct i ng

t hi s r evi ew, we ar e not bound by t he l ower cour t ' s concl usi ons of

l aw but , r at her , may af f i r m on any basi s made mani f est by t he

r ecord. See Peguer o- Moront a v. Sant i ago, 464 F. 3d 29, 34 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) ; see al so I nt er Gen N. V. v. Gr i na, 344 F. 3d 134, 141

( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

At i t s cor e, qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s a j udge- made doct r i ne

t hat mai nt ai ns a del i cat e equi l i br i um bet ween "t wo i mpor t ant

i nt er est s t he need t o hol d publ i c of f i ci al s account abl e when

t hey exer ci se power i r r esponsi bl y and t he need t o shi el d of f i ci al s

f r om har assment , di st r act i on, and l i abi l i t y when t hey per f or m

t hei r dut i es r easonabl y. " Pear son v. Cal l ahan, 555 U. S. 223, 231

( 2009) . To t hat end, qual i f i ed i mmuni t y shi el ds gover nment

of f i ci al s " f rom l i abi l i t y f or ci vi l damages i nsof ar as thei r

conduct does not vi ol at e cl ear l y est abl i shed st at ut or y or

const i t ut i onal r i ght s of whi ch a r easonabl e per son woul d have

known. " Har l ow v. Fi t zger al d, 457 U. S. 800, 818 ( 1982) . Thi s


7/25

- 7 -

const r uct "gi ves gover nment of f i ci al s br eat hi ng r oom t o make

r easonabl e but mi st aken j udgment s about open l egal quest i ons, "

Ashcr of t v. al - Ki dd, 131 S. Ct . 2074, 2085 ( 2011) , whi l e

si mul t aneousl y exposi ng t o l i abi l i t y of f i ci al s who f r om an

obj ect i ve st andpoi nt shoul d have known t hat t hei r act i ons

vi ol at ed t he l aw, see Pagn v. Cal der n, 448 F. 3d 16, 31 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) .

Exami ni ng a cl ai m of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y t ypi cal l y

r equi r es a t wo- st ep anal ysi s. At t he f i r st st ep, an i nqui r i ng

cour t must expl or e "whet her t he f act s t hat a pl ai nt i f f has al l eged

or shown make out a vi ol at i on of a const i t ut i onal r i ght . " Pear son,

555 U. S. at 232 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . At t he second st ep, t he cour t

must det er mi ne "whet her t he r i ght at i ssue was ' cl ear l y

est abl i shed' at t he t i me of def endant ' s al l eged mi sconduct . " I d.

( quot i ng Sauci er v. Kat z, 533 U. S. 194, 201 ( 2001) ) ; see Hal ey v.

Ci t y of Bost on, 657 F. 3d 39, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . The cour t need

not engage i n t hi s t wo- st ep pavane sequent i al l y, but may al t er t he

chor eogr aphy i n t he i nt er est s of ef f i ci ency. See Pear son, 555

U. S. at 236; Hal ey, 657 F. 3d at 47. Thi s poi nt i s sal i ent her e,

as O' Nei l l conf i nes her appeal of t he ver di ct t o t he quest i on of


8/25

- 8 -

whet her t he gover ni ng l aw was cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me of

t he sear ch. 3

Thi s i nqui r y demands i t s own t wo- par t anal ysi s. Fi r st ,

we must f ocus "on t he cl ar i t y of t he l aw at t he t i me of t he al l eged

ci vi l r i ght s vi ol at i on. " Mal donado v. Font anes, 568 F. 3d 263, 269

( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Such an assessment " t ur ns on whet her t he cont our s

of t he rel evant r i ght wer e cl ear enough t o si gnal t o a r easonabl e

of f i ci al t hat hi s conduct woul d i nf r i nge t hat r i ght . " MacDonal d

v. Town of East ham, 745 F. 3d 8, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Once t hat

hal f of t he i nqui r y i s compl et e, we must appr ai se t he f act s of t he

case t o det ermi ne "whet her a reasonabl e def endant woul d have

under st ood t hat hi s conduct vi ol at ed t he pl ai nt i f f [ ' s]

const i t ut i onal r i ght s. " Mal donado, 568 F. 3d at 269. I n maki ng

t hi s appr ai sal , i t i s not necessar y t hat t he par t i cul ar f actual

scenar i o has previ ousl y been addr essed and f ound unconst i t ut i onal :

"of f i ci al s can st i l l be on not i ce t hat t hei r conduct vi ol at es

est abl i shed l aw even i n novel f act ual ci r cumst ances. " Hope v.

Pel zer , 536 U. S. 730, 741 ( 2002) .

I n t he case at hand, t he backgr ound pr i nci pl e of l aw i s

t he Four t h Amendment , whi ch shi el ds i ndi vi dual s f r om"unr easonabl e

sear ches and sei zur es. " U. S. Const . amend. I V. I t i s common

3The pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat O' Nei l l has wai ved her qual i f i edi mmuni t y cl ai m. Because t he cl ai m i s easi l y r esol ved on t hemer i t s, we have no occasi on t o t est t hi s asser t i on.


9/25

- 9 -

gr ound t hat a man' s home i s hi s cast l e and, as such, t he home i s

shi el ded by t he hi ghest l evel of Four t h Amendment pr otect i on. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i ns, 413 F. 3d 139, 146 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . Thus

t he l aw, at t he t i me of t he sear ch, was cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat

"[ a] war r ant l ess pol i ce ent r y i nt o a resi dence i s pr esumpt i vel y

unr easonabl e unl ess i t f al l s wi t hi n t he compass of one of a f ew

wel l - del i neated except i ons" t o the Four t h Amendment ' s warr ant

r equi r ement . Uni t ed St at es v. Romai n, 393 F. 3d 63, 68 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) .

O' Nei l l at t empt s t o seek ref uge i n one of t he l esser

known of t hese except i ons: t he communi t y caret aki ng except i on.

Thi s except i on has i t s genesi s i n t he Supreme Cour t ' s deci si on i n

Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U. S. 433 ( 1973) . There, t he Cour t exami ned

a warr ant l ess search of a car t hat had been t owed f ol l owi ng a

t r af f i c acci dent t o secur e a gun bel i eved t o be i n t he vehi cl e.

See i d. at 436- 37. The Cour t hel d t hat t he sear ch was r easonabl e

and di d not vi ol ate t he Four t h Amendment as t he of f i cer s wer e

engaged i n "communi t y car et aki ng f unct i ons. " I d. at 441.

Si nce Cady, t he communi t y caretaki ng except i on has

evol ved i nt o "a cat chal l f or t he wi de r ange of r esponsi bi l i t i es

t hat pol i ce of f i cer s must di schar ge asi de f r om t hei r cri mi nal

enf or cement act i vi t i es. " Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez- Mor al es, 929

F. 2d 780, 785 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . The case l aw concerni ng communi t y

car et aki ng f unct i ons most of t en has i nvol ved act i ons by pol i ce


10/25

- 10 -

of f i cer s wi t h r espect t o mot or vehi cl es. See, e. g. , Cady, 413

U. S. at 441; Rodr i guez- Mor al es, 929 F. 2d at 785. The doct r i ne' s

appl i cabi l i t y has been f ar l ess cl ear i n cases i nvol vi ng sear ches

of t he home. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Ti bol t , 72 F. 3d 965, 969

n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( l eavi ng t hi s quest i on open) ; Commonweal t h v.

Ent wi st l e, 973 N. E. 2d 115, 127 n. 8 ( Mass. 2012) ( same) ; see al so

MacDonal d, 745 F. 3d at 13 ( col l ect i ng cases and not i ng di ver gence

of vi ews among cour t s t hat have gr appl ed wi t h t hi s quest i on) .

Al t hough we do not deci de t he quest i on, we assume, f avorabl y t o

O' Nei l l , t hat t he communi t y car et aki ng except i on may appl y t o

war r ant l ess r esi dent i al sear ches.

Even on t hi s f avor abl e assumpt i on, O' Nei l l ' s cl ai m

f ounder s. I n MacDonal d t he case upon whi ch O' Nei l l pr i mar i l y

r el i es l ocal pol i ce r esponded t o a t el ephone cal l f r om a per son

concer ned t hat her nei ghbor ' s door was open t hough he was not home.

See i d. at 10- 11. Unabl e t o cont act t he r esi dent , t he pol i ce

ent ered t he home and, once i nsi de, f ound evi dence of mar i j uana

cul t i vat i on. See i d. at 11. We concl uded t hat t he of f i cer s wer e

ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y because t hei r ent r y i nt o t he home

was arguabl y wi t hi n t he scope of t he communi t y car etaki ng

except i on. See i d. at 15.

Wr est i ng f r om t hei r cont ext ual moor i ngs our st at ement s

i n MacDonal d that t he doct r i ne was "nebul ous" and sur r ounded by

"r ampant uncer t ai nt y, " i d. at 14, O' Nei l l submi t s t hat t hi s l ack


11/25

- 11 -

of cer t i t ude shi el ds her act i ons. But t hi s uncer t ai nt y does not

assi st O' Nei l l ' s cause: whi l e t he paramet er s of t he communi t y

caret aki ng except i on are nebul ous i n some r espect s ( such as whet her

t he except i on appl i es at al l t o r esi dent i al sear ches) , t he

hear t l and of t he except i on i s r easonabl y wel l def i ned. Some

at t empt s t o i nvoke t he except i on pl ai nl y f al l out si de t hi s

hear t l and. Thi s i s such a case. As we expl ai n bel ow, a r easonabl e

of f i cer st andi ng i n O' Nei l l ' s shoes shoul d have known t hat her

war r ant l ess ent r y was not wi t hi n the compass of t he communi t y

car et aki ng except i on and, t hus, t hat her i nt r usi on i nt o t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s home abr i dged hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s.

The communi t y car et aki ng except i on i s di st i ngui shed f r om

ot her except i ons t o t he Four t h Amendment ' s war r ant r equi r ement

because i t " r equi r es a cour t t o l ook at t he function per f or med by

a pol i ce of f i cer " when t he of f i cer engages i n a war r ant l ess sear ch

or sei zure. Hunsber ger v. Wood, 570 F. 3d 546, 554 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) .

The Cady Cour t t ook pai ns t o def i ne communi t y car et aki ng f unct i ons

as bei ng "t ot al l y di vor ced f r om t he det ecti on, i nvest i gat i on, or

acqui si t i on of evi dence r el at i ng t o t he vi ol at i on of a cri mi nal

st at ut e. " 413 U. S. at 441. Cases t hat do not sat i sf y t hi s

r equi r ement f al l out si de t he hear t l and of t he communi t y car et aki ng

except i on, and i t i s t her ef or e not sur pr i si ng t hat t he cour t s t hat

have addr essed t he except i on have st r essed t he separat i on between

t he pol i ce' s communi t y car et aki ng f unct i ons and t he normal work of


12/25

- 12 -

cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on. See, e. g. , Hunsber ger , 570 F. 3d at 554;

Uni t ed St at es v. Quezada, 448 F. 3d 1005, 1007 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 354 F. 3d 497, 508 ( 6t h Ci r . 2003) ;

Peopl e v. Ray, 981 P. 2d 928, 938 ( Cal . 1999) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ;

Peopl e v. Davi s, 497 N. W. 2d 910, 920 ( Mi ch. 1993) ; St ate v. Whi t e,

168 P. 3d 459, 466- 67 ( Wash. Ct . App. 2007) ; cf . St ate v. Deneui ,

775 N. W. 2d 221, 241 ( S. D. 2009) ( concl udi ng t hat , even t hough t he

i ni t i al ar r i val at t he home was connect ed t o a pot ent i al cr i mi nal

i nvest i gat i on, t he ent r y i nt o the home was reasonabl e because t he

of f i cer s ent er ed t he home "not as par t of a cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on,

but i n pur suance of t hei r communi t y car et aki ng f unct i on" ) .

Her e, t he r ecor d est abl i shes beyond hope of

cont r adi ct i on t hat O' Nei l l was engaged i n a qui nt essent i al

cri mi nal i nvest i gat i on acti vi t y t he pur sui t of a f l eei ng f el on

i n t he i mmedi at e af t ermat h of a robbery when she ordered t he

sear ch of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s home. O' Nei l l t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat

she ar r i ved at t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r esi dence af t er bei ng di r ect ed t her e

by a wi t ness t o t he cr i me and t hat she bel i eved the suspect had

f l ed i nt o t he dwel l i ng. Thus, her act i ons f al l f ar beyond t he

bor der s of t he hear t l and of t he communi t y car et aki ng except i on.

I n an ef f or t t o def l ect t hi s r easoni ng, O' Nei l l poi nt s

t o our deci si on i n Rodr i guez- Mor al es, i n whi ch we not ed t hat " t he

coexi st ence of i nvest i gat or y and car et aki ng mot i ves wi l l not

i nval i dat e t he [ of f i cer ' s chal l enged act ] . " 929 F. 2d at 787. But


13/25

- 13 -

i n Rodr i guez- Mor al es we addr essed a si t uat i on wher e of f i cer s wer e

engaged i n an act i vi t y squar el y wi t hi n t he hear t l and of t he

communi t y car etaki ng f unct i on r emovi ng a car f r om t he hi ghway

when no occupant of t he vehi cl e had a val i d dr i ver ' s l i cense

r at her t han a cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on. See i d. at 785. Seen i n

t hi s l i ght , t he quot ed l anguage si gni f i es onl y that , once i t has

been det er mi ned t hat a case f al l s wi t hi n t he hear t l and of t he

communi t y car et aki ng except i on, t he possi bl e exi st ence of mi xed

mot i ves wi l l not def eat t he of f i cer ' s cl ai m of ent i t l ement t o t he

except i on.

Rodr i guez- Mor al es, l i ke Cady and l i ke our deci si on i n

Uni t ed St at es v. Cocci a, 446 F. 3d 233, 238 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ,

excl udes cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on act i vi t i es f r omt he pur vi ew of t he

communi t y car et aki ng except i on. Af t er al l , we wer e car ef ul t o

expl ai n i n Rodr i guez- Moral es t hat t he communi t y caret aki ng

except i on exi st s t o pr ovi de a r ubr i c f or anal yzi ng " t he wi de r ange

of r esponsi bi l i t i es t hat pol i ce of f i cer s must di schar ge asi de f r om

t hei r cr i mi nal enf or cement act i vi t i es. " 929 F. 2d at 785 ( emphasi s

suppl i ed) . Thi s mappi ng of t he boundar i es of t he communi t y

car et aki ng except i on accor ds wi t h t he car t ogr aphy of ever y ot her

ci r cui t t hat has addr essed t he quest i on.

I n sum, t he cont our s of bot h t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght t o

enj oy t he sanct i t y of hi s home and t he hear t l and of t he communi t y

car et aki ng except i on wer e suf f i ci ent l y cl ear t o al er t O' Nei l l t hat


14/25

- 14 -

her pl an of act i on a war r ant l ess ent r y woul d i nf r i nge t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s const i t ut i onal ri ght s. Put anot her way, an

obj ect i vel y r easonabl e of f i cer shoul d have known t hat a

war r ant l ess ent r y i nt o t he pl ai nt i f f ' s home coul d not be ef f ect ed

on t he basi s of t he communi t y caret aki ng except i on. Though t he

pr eci se di mensi ons of t he communi t y caret aki ng except i on are

bl ur r ed, t hat ci r cumst ance does not mean t hat ever y at t empt t o

r esort t o t he except i on must be r egarded as ar guabl e. See DeMayo

v. Nugent , 517 F. 3d 11, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . What mat t er s her e i s

t hat t he except i on i s suf f i ci ent l y def i ned t o pl ace O' Nei l l ' s

conduct wel l out si de i t s hear t l and and, t hus, t o r ender qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y i nappl i cabl e.

We hast en t o add t hat r ef usi ng t o ext end the communi t y

car et aki ng except i on t o ongoi ng manhunt s does not undul y cr amp t he

conduct of of f i cer s r espondi ng t o pot ent i al l y danger ous si t uat i ons

i n t he cour se of a cri mi nal i nvest i gat i on. Af t er al l , t her e i s a

r ecogni zed except i on t o t he war r ant r equi r ement f or "exi gent

ci r cumst ances, " whi ch appl i es when " t her e i s such a compel l i ng

necessi t y f or i mmedi at e act i on as wi l l not br ook t he del ay of

obt ai ni ng a war r ant . " Fl et cher v. Town of Cl i nt on, 196 F. 3d 41,

49 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Al mont e, 952 F. 2d 20,

22 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) . Rel evant scenar i os i ncl ude "( 1) ' hot pur sui t '

of a f l eei ng f el on; ( 2) t hr eat ened dest r uct i on of evi dence i nsi de

a r esi dence bef or e a war r ant can be obt ai ned; ( 3) a r i sk t hat t he


15/25

- 15 -

suspect may escape f r om t he resi dence undet ect ed; or ( 4) a t hr eat ,

posed by a suspect , t o t he l i ves or saf et y of t he publ i c, t he

pol i ce of f i cer s, or t o her sel f . " Hegar t y v. Somer set Count y, 53

F. 3d 1367, 1374 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . Rel at edl y, a subset of t he

exi gent ci r cumst ances r ubr i c cover s "emer gency ai d. " Wi t hi n t hi s

subset , " t he pol i ce, i n an emer gency si t uat i on, may ent er a

r esi dence wi t hout a war r ant i f t hey r easonabl y bel i eve t hat swi f t

act i on i s r equi r ed t o saf eguar d l i f e or pr event ser i ous har m. "

Mar t i ns, 413 F. 3d at 147; see Br i gham Ci t y v. St uar t , 547 U. S.

398, 403 ( 2006) .

These wel l - est abl i shed except i ons t o t he Four t h

Amendment ' s warr ant r equi r ement exi st t o permi t t he pol i ce t o carr y

out t hei r l aw enf orcement dut i es i n a manner t hat r ecogni zes t he

need f or qui ck and ef f i ci ent r esponses t o r api dl y evol vi ng

si t uat i ons. See Mar t i ns, 413 F. 3d at 146- 47; Fl et cher , 196 F. 3d

at 49- 50. Such doct r i nes pr ovi de ampl e l eeway f or pol i ce of f i cer s

( l i ke O' Nei l l ) who must f r om t i me t o t i me r espond t o unf or eseen

ci r cumst ances t hat ar i se i n t he cour se of cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i ons.

The j ury here was i nst r uct ed on t he exi gent ci r cumst ances doct r i ne.

I t f ound no exi gency and r et ur ned a ver di ct f or t he pl ai nt i f f on

t he unr easonabl e sear ch cl ai m.

We summar i ze succi nct l y. I n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s

case wher e t he of f i cer was i ndi sput abl y engaged i n an ongoi ng

cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on when t he war r ant l ess sear ch occur r ed t he


16/25

- 16 -

communi t y caretaki ng except i on does not appl y. There was no l ack

of cl ar i t y on t hi s poi nt at t he t i me t he sear ch t ook pl ace.

Consequent l y, a reasonabl e of f i cer i n O' Nei l l ' s posi t i on shoul d

have known t hat her i nt r usi on i nt o the pl ai nt i f f ' s home woul d

t r ansgr ess hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s. She was, t her ef or e, not

ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, and t he di st r i ct cour t

appr opr i at el y deni ed O' Nei l l ' s mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of

l aw.

B. Jury Instructions.

I n a r el at ed vei n, O' Nei l l asser t s t hat she was ent i t l ed

t o a j ur y i nst r uct i on on t he communi t y car et aki ng except i on. Her

pr oposed i nst r uct i on i s r epr i nt ed i n t he mar gi n. 4 The di str i ct

cour t di sagr eed, and so do we.

4 O' Nei l l ' s pr oposed i nst r ucti on i s as f ol l ows:

Another except i on t o t he war r ant r equi r ement i s t hecommuni t y car et aki ng f unct i on. Thi s except i on appl i es i ncases of pur e emer gency, wher e pol i ce ent r y of a dwel l i ng i sef f ect ed sol el y t o aver t a danger ous si t uat i on t hat t hr eat ensl i f e or saf et y, and not f or cr i mi nal i nvest i gat or y pur poses.I n such cases, nei t her a war r ant , nor pr obabl e cause i s neededt o ent er . The communi t y caret aki ng except i on r ecogni zes t hatt he pol i ce per f or m a mul t i t ude of communi t y f unct i ons apar tf r om i nvest i gat i ng cr i me. I n per f or mi ng t hi s communi t ycar et aki ng r ol e, pol i ce ar e expect ed t o ai d t hose i n di st r ess,combat act ual hazards, pr event pot ent i al hazards f r ommat er i al i zi ng and pr ovi de an i nf i ni t e var i et y of ser vi ces t opr eser ve and pr ot ect publ i c saf et y. The r ol e of a pol i ceof f i cer i ncl udes pr event i ng vi ol ence and r est or i ng or der , notsi mpl y r ender i ng f i r st ai d t o casual t i es. As l ong as ent r ancei n a dwel l i ng pur suant t o t he communi t y car et aki ng f unct i oni s not a mer e pl oy f or i nvest i gat i on, t he coexi st ence of


17/25

- 17 -

We af f or d pl enar y r evi ew t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal

t o i nst r uct on a par t i cul ar cl ai m or def ense. See Sher vi n v.

Par t ner s Heal t hcar e Sys. , I nc. , ___ F. 3d ___, ___ ( 1st Ci r . 2015)

[ No. 14- 1651, sl i p op. at 50] ; But ynski v. Spr i ngf i el d Ter m. Ry.

Co. , 592 F. 3d 272, 276 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Ref usal "const i t ut es

r ever si bl e er r or onl y i f t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on was ( 1) cor r ect

as a mat t er of subst ant i ve l aw, ( 2) not subst ant i al l y i ncor por at ed

i nt o t he char ge as r ender ed, and ( 3) i nt egr al t o an i mpor t ant poi nt

i n t he case. " Uni t ed St at es v. McGi l l , 953 F. 2d 10, 13 ( 1st Ci r .

1992) .

The cour t bel ow decl i ned t o gi ve O' Nei l l ' s desi r ed

i nst r uct i on on t wo gr ounds. Fi r st , t he cour t concl uded t hat t he

i nst r uct i on was i ncor r ect as a mat t er of l aw. See Mat al on I , 2015

WL 1137808, at *6- 7. Second, t he cour t concl uded t hat t he

i nst r uct i on l acked a suf f i ci ent f oundat i on i n t he evi dence. See

i d. at *8. We bel i eve t hat t he cour t ' s appr ai sal was accur at e i n

bot h r espect s.

To begi n, t he pr oposed i nst r uct i on st at ed onl y t hat ,

under t he communi t y caret aki ng except i on, "nei t her a warr ant , nor

pr obabl e cause i s needed t o ent er " a dwel l i ng. The pr oposed

i nst r uct i on was of f - base because i t omi t t ed any descr i pt i on of t he

i nvest i gat or y and car et aki ng mot i ves wi l l not i nval i dat e t hesear ch ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .


18/25

- 18 -

st andar d by whi ch t he j ur y was t o eval uat e O' Nei l l ' s sear ch under

t he communi t y caretaki ng except i on. 5 Thi s omi ssi on cr eated t wo

pr obl ems: i t not onl y render ed t he request ed i nst r uct i on l egal l y

i ncor r ect but al so t hr eat ened t o mi sl ead t he j ur y i n i t s

appl i cat i on of t he l aw t o t he f act s. See Uni t ed St at es v.

DeSt ef ano, 59 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) .

At any r at e, a j ur y i nstr uct i on i s pr oper onl y i f i t i s

war r ant ed by t he evi dence i nt r oduced at t r i al . See Kel l i her v.

Gen. Tr ansp. Ser vs. , I nc. , 29 F. 3d 750, 754 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . The

evi dence i n t hi s case nei t her r equi r ed nor suppor t ed a communi t y

car et aki ng i nst r ucti on.

Her e, t he r ecor d shows wi t h conspi cuous cl ar i t y t hat t he

pol i ce were engaged i n a manhunt at t he t i me when O' Nei l l embar ked

on t he sear ch. Thus, a r easonabl e j ur y coul d not have f ound t hat

t he of f i cer s' ent r y i nt o t he pl ai nt i f f ' s home was car r i ed out i n

pur suance of a communi t y car et aki ng f unct i on ( or , i n O' Nei l l ' s

5 I n r ul i ng on O' Nei l l ' s post- t r i al mot i on, t he di str i ct cour tgave O' Nei l l t he benef i t of t he doubt and t r eat ed t he pr oposedi nst r uct i on as i f i t had i ncor por at ed a r easonabl e suspi ci onst andard. See Mat al on I , 2015 WL 1137808, at *6- 7. But even t hi sgener ous r eadi ng of t he pr oposed i nst r uct i on does not save t heday: t he case l aw has never suggest ed t hat r easonabl e suspi ci on a st andar d wi t h a def i ned meani ng i n Four t h Amendmentj ur i sprudence, see, e. g. , Mar t i ns, 413 F. 3d at 149 i s t heappr opr i at e l ens t hr ough whi ch t he communi t y car etaki ng except i onshoul d be anal yzed. Rat her , t he communi t y car etaki ng cases havespoken of " r easonabl eness, " si mpl i ci t er . See, e. g. , Rodr i guez-Moral es, 929 F. 2d at 786- 87.


19/25

- 19 -

pr oposed l anguage, t hat t he ent r y "was ef f ect ed sol el y t o aver t a

danger ous si t uat i on" unr el at ed t o "cr i mi nal i nvest i gat or y

pur poses") . 6

C. Attorneys' Fees.

As sai d, t he di st r i ct cour t awar ded at t or neys' f ees and

cost s t o t he pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i f f i n t he amount of $134, 642. 35.

Thi s awar d r ef l ect ed t he pl ai nt i f f ' s successf ul prosecut i on of hi s

unr easonabl e sear ch and excessi ve f or ce cl ai ms. The appel l ant s

chal l enge t hi s awar d. Our r evi ew i s f or abuse of di scr et i on. See

Gay Of f i cer s Act i on League v. Puer t o Ri co ( GOAL) , 247 F. 3d 288,

292 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Absent a mat er i al er r or of l aw, we wi l l not

set asi de a f ee awar d unl ess "i t cl ear l y appear s t hat t he t r i al

cour t i gnor ed a f act or deser vi ng si gni f i cant wei ght , r el i ed upon

an i mpr oper f act or , or eval uat ed al l t he pr oper f act or s ( and no

i mpr oper ones) , but made a ser i ous mi st ake i n wei ghi ng t hem. " I d.

at 292- 93.

Under t he Fees Act , 42 U. S. C. 1988( b) , cour t s have

di scret i on t o awar d pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i f f s r easonabl e at t or neys'

6Al t hough some t r i al t est i mony suggest ed t hat O' Nei l l may haveent er t ai ned a subj ect i ve concer n about t he saf et y of possi bl eoccupant s of t he dwel l i ng, her subj ect i ve i nt ent i s notdet er mi nat i ve of t he f unct i on t hat she was per f ormi ng when sheent er ed t he house. And i n al l event s, an obj ect i ve vi ew of t her ecord does not al l ow a f i ndi ng t hat such a concer n was t he sol e or even t he pr i nci pal r eason f or her deci si on t o ent er t hedwel l i ng.


20/25

- 20 -

f ees i n ci vi l act i ons br ought pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983. The

l odest ar appr oach i s t he met hod of choi ce f or cal cul at i ng f ee

awards. See Per due v. Kenny A. ex r el . Wi nn, 559 U. S. 542, 550-

51 ( 2010) ; Cout i n v. Young & Rubi cam P. R. , I nc. , 124 F. 3d 331, 337

( 1st Ci r . 1997) . Under t hi s l odest ar appr oach, a di st r i ct cour t

f i r st " cal cul at e[ s] t he number of hour s r easonabl y expended by t he

at t or neys f or t he pr evai l i ng par t y, excl udi ng t hose hour s t hat ar e

' excessi ve, r edundant , or ot her wi se unnecessary. ' " Cent . Pensi on

Fund of t he I nt ' l Uni on of Oper at i ng Eng' r s & Par t i ci pat i ng Emp' r s

v. Ray Hal uch Gr avel Co. , 745 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng

Hensl ey v. Ecker har t , 461 U. S. 424, 434 ( 1983) ) . The cour t t hen

det er mi nes "a r easonabl e hour l y r at e or r at es a det er mi nat i on

t hat i s of t en benchmarked t o t he pr evai l i ng r ates i n t he communi t y

f or l awyer s of l i ke qual i f i cat i ons, exper i ence, and compet ence. "

I d. Mul t i pl yi ng t he r esul t s of t hese t wo i nqui r i es yi el ds t he

l odest ar amount . The cour t may t hen adj ust t he potent i al award

based on f act or s not capt ur ed i n t he l odest ar cal cul at i on. See

Hensl ey, 461 U. S. at 434 & n. 9; Cout i n, 124 F. 3d at 337.

At t i mes, we have i ndi cated our appr oval of f ee awards

t hat set t wo separ at e hour l y rat es f or a par t i cul ar at t or ney one

f or "cor e" t asks l i ke "l egal r esear ch, wr i t i ng of l egal document s,

cour t appear ances, negot i at i ons wi t h opposi ng counsel , moni t or i ng,

and i mpl ement at i on of cour t order s" and a l ower one f or "non- core"

t asks, whi ch ar e " l ess demandi ng, " such as " l et t er wr i t i ng and


21/25

- 21 -

t el ephone conver sat i ons. " Br ewst er v. Dukaki s, 3 F. 3d 488, 492

n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . The pl ai nt i f f ' s f ee appl i cat i on i n t hi s case

assi gned a si ngl e r at e to each at t or ney, and t he appel l ant s opposed

t hat appl i cat i on on t he gr ound t hat some of t he t i me bi l l ed was

f or non- cor e wor k. Those non- cor e act i vi t i es, t he appel l ant s sai d,

shoul d be bi l l ed at t wo- t hi r ds t he r at e appl i cabl e t o cor e

act i vi t i es.

The di st r i ct cour t demur r ed, see Mat al on I I , 2015 WL

1206343, at *1, and used a si ngl e r at e f or each of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

l awyer s ( al t hough t hese rat es wer e l ess muni f i cent t han t hose that

t he pl ai nt i f f had suggest ed) . The appel l ant s l abel t hi s r ef usal

an abuse of di scret i on. Bot h t he l at i t ude ceded t o di st r i ct cour t s

i n maki ng f ee awar ds and t he f l exi bi l i t y i nher ent i n t he l odest ar

appr oach counsel agai nst t he appel l ant s' cont ent i on.

As t o t he f ormer , we f r equent l y have acknowl edged t he

speci al coi gn of vant age of " t he t r i al j udge, whose i nt i mat e

knowl edge of t he nuances of t he under l yi ng case uni quel y posi t i ons

hi m t o const r uct a condi gn award. " GOAL, 247 F. 3d at 292; see

Br ewst er , 3 F. 3d at 492. Def er r i ng t o t he r easonabl e j udgment of

t he t r i al cour t i n t hi s ar ea r ecogni zes t hat t he "det er mi nat i on of

t he ext ent of a r easonabl e f ee necessar i l y i nvol ves a ser i es of

j udgment cal l s. " Li pset t v. Bl anco, 975 F. 2d 934, 937 ( 1st Ci r .

1992) . I n t he same spi r i t , we t r adi t i onal l y have r ef r ai ned f r om

pr escr i bi ng har d and f ast r ul es f or f ee awar ds i n or der t o ensur e


22/25

- 22 -

t hat di st r i ct cour t s ar e not l ef t "t o dr own i n a r i si ng t i de of

f ee- gener at ed mi nut i ae. " Uni t ed St at es v. Met r o. Di st . Comm' n,

847 F. 2d 12, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) .

Fl exi bi l i t y i s a hal l mar k of t he l odest ar appr oach. See

i d. I n at t empt i ng t o gui de t hi s f l exi bi l i t y, we have st at ed t hat

"cl er i cal or secret ar i al t asks ought not t o be bi l l ed at l awyer s'

r at es, even i f a l awyer per f or ms t hem. " Li pset t , 975 F. 2d at 940.

By t he same t oken, we have i ndi cat ed t hat cer t ai n component s of

f ee awar ds ( such as wor k per f or med i n pr epar i ng and l i t i gat i ng f ee

pet i t i ons) may be cal cul at ed at di scount ed r at es due t o t he

compar at i ve si mpl i ci t y of t he t ask. See, e. g. , Tor r es- Ri ver a v.

O' Nei l l - Cancel , 524 F. 3d 331, 340 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . But t hese ar e

not har d- and- f ast r ul es. Rat her , t hey ar e expr essi ons of t he mor e

gener al pr i nci pl e t hat cal cul at i ng a r easonabl e f ee i s, f or t he

most par t , an assessment of t he di f f i cul t y of t he wor k i nvol ved

and t he t i me r easonabl y expended. See Cout i n, 124 F. 3d at 337

n. 3. Such expr essi ons wer e never meant t o mani f est an i nsi st ence

t hat a di st r i ct cour t adopt cer t ai n mechani st i c pr ocedur es i n

cal cul at i ng t he l odest ar .

The bot t om l i ne i s t hat t here ar e a var i et y of ways i n

whi ch a t r i al cour t can f ashi on t he l odest ar . Di st i ngui shi ng

bet ween cor e and non- cor e t asks i s one of t hose ways. But we have

never i mposed a r i gi d r equi r ement t hat a di st r i ct cour t empl oy a

cor e/ non- cor e anal ysi s when adj udi cat i ng a f ee pet i t i on and we


23/25

- 23 -

decl i ne t o i mpose such a r equi r ement t oday. Whi l e t he core/ non-

cor e di st i nct i on may be a usef ul t ool f or f ashi oni ng a r easonabl e

f ee i n some cases, t he choi ce of whet her t o empl oy that di st i nct i on

i s wi t hi n t he sound di scret i on of t he di st r i ct cour t . As l ong as

t he cour t uses per mi ssi bl e t echni ques and expl ai ns what i t has

done, a r evi ewi ng cour t ' s pr i mar y f ocus i s on t he r easonabl eness

of t he award. See Bogan v. Ci t y of Bost on, 489 F. 3d 417, 430 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) .

Her e, t he cour t el ect ed t o empl oy an acr oss- t he- boar d

r at e cut , r at her t han usi ng t wo- t i er ed r at es t o det er mi ne t he

l odest ar amount . I n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t hat

met hodol ogi c choi ce was not an abuse of di scr et i on. See, e. g. ,

Cent . Pensi on, 745 F. 3d at 5- 8 ( uphol di ng f ee award whi ch di d not

di st i ngui sh bet ween cor e and non- cor e f unct i ons) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

One St ar Cl ass Sl oop Sai l boat , 546 F. 3d 26, 40- 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( same) ; Andr ade v. J amest own Hous. Auth. , 82 F. 3d 1179, 1189- 91

( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( same) .

The appel l ant s' back- up ar gument i s t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s r at i onal e whi ch di d not expl i ci t l y take i nt o account t he

cor e/ non- cor e di st i nct i on was i nadequat e t o suppor t t he f ee

awar d. Thi s i s t he same ol d whi ne i n a di f f er ent bot t l e, and t he

argument need not det ai n us.

The cour t bel ow made pel l uci d t hat i t i nt ended t o

" f ol l ow[ ] t he l odest ar appr oach. " Mat al on I I , 2015 WL 1206343, at


24/25

- 24 -

*1. I t not ed t hat t he appel l ant s made "no cl ai m t hat Pl ai nt i f f ' s

counsel seeks compensat i on f or non- at t or ney t asks at at t or ney

r at es. " I d. Thi s i s si mpl y anot her way of sayi ng t hat , i n t he

cour t ' s vi ew, t he bi l l ed t i me di d not i ncl ude t he sor t of "cl er i cal

or secret ar i al t asks" t hat we have i ndi cat ed shoul d or di nar i l y be

char ged at l ower r at es. Li pset t , 975 F. 2d at 940. Gi ven t hi s

ci r cumst ance, i t was r easonabl e f or t he cour t t o concl ude t hat i t

coul d shape t he l odest ar by usi ng a si ngl e hour l y r at e f or each

at t or ney.

Except f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on not t o empl oy

t he cor e/ non- cor e di st i nct i on, t he appel l ant s do not chal l enge on

appeal ei t her t he cour t ' s met hodol ogy or i t s j udgment cal l s. We

al r eady have expl ai ned why the cour t was not r equi r ed t o use t he

cor e/ non- cor e di st i nct i on. Vi ewed i n t hi s l i ght , our pr i mar y f ocus

must be on t he reasonabl eness of t he f ee award and t he cl ar i t y of

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s expl anat i on, t hat i s, whet her "t he or der

awardi ng f ees, r ead agai nst t he backdr op of t he r ecord as a whol e

. . . expose[ s] t he di st r i ct cour t ' s t hought pr ocess and show[ s]

t he met hod and manner under l yi ng i t s deci si onal cal cul us. " Cout i n,

124 F. 3d at 337.

I n t hi s case, t he cour t met hodi cal l y wended i t s way

t hr ough t he f ee appl i cat i on: i t excl uded some ent r i es cont ai ned i n

t he appl i cat i on; r educed t he pr oposed hour l y rat es f or t wo of t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s at t or neys; set a r at e equal t o a par al egal f or a


25/25

f l edgl i ng at t or ney; and cut t he l odest ar amount by f i ve per cent t o

account f or cl ai ms on whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f had been unsuccessf ul .

See Mat al on I I , 2015 WL 1206343, at *1- 2. Gi ven t he f l exi bi l i t y

i nher ent i n t he l odest ar appr oach and t he wi de di scr et i on vest ed

i n a f ee- set t i ng cour t , we concl ude t hat t he l odest ar was

const r uct ed i n an accept abl e manner and t hat t he r esul t ant f ee

f el l wi t hi n t he uni ver se of r easonabl e awar ds. No mor e i s

exi gi bl e.

Ther e i s one l oose end. Whi l e t hi s appeal was pendi ng,

t he pl ai nt i f f moved f or an or der of r emand t o t he di st r i ct cour t

so that cour t mi ght f ashi on an awar d of at t or neys' f ees f or wor k

done on appeal . We di r ect t he cl er k of cour t t o deny t hat mot i on

wi t hout pr ej udi ce. Appl i cat i ons f or awar ds of f ees and expenses

on appeal shoul d be submi t t ed wi t hi n 30 days f ol l owi ng t he ent r y

of a f i nal j udgment i n t hi s cour t . See 1st Ci r . R. 39. 1( b) . We

may t hen deci de whet her t o r esol ve t he f ee appl i cat i on our sel ves

or r emand t he mat t er t o t he di st r i ct cour t . A r emand mot i on, l i ke

t hi s one, f i l ed pr i or t o t he ent r y of f i nal j udgment i s pr emat ur e.

III. CONCLUSION

We need go no f ur t her . For t he r easons el uci dat ed above,

t he j udgment i s

Affirmed.

matalon v. hynnes, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents