Alaska Employment Law

Saturday’s Anchorage Daily News covered the story of Carolyn Mitchell’s unsuccessful civil rights action against the Anchorage Police Department in federal court, and the large fee award that Judge John Sedwick entered against her.  Sedwick had earlier granted Mitchell summary judgment on her false arrest claim under state law.  Mitchell v. Anchorage Police Department, 2007 WL 4511176 (D.Alaska 2007).  The jury awarded $1.00 in nominal damages on that claim, and found for the defendant on Mitchell’s other state claims and her § 1983 claim.

After trial, Mitchell sought Rule  82 fees as the prevailing party on the false arrest claim.  She asserted public interest litigant status and asked for her full $156,237 in actual fees.  The Police Deopartment contended it was the prevailing party and sought fees of $113,266 (its actual fees were $125,852). 

Sedwick found that the Police Department prevailed on the false arrest claim.  Sedwick ordered an upward adjustment from the presumptive 30 %.  The total fee award was $44,255, including the $6,500 adjustment.  Sedwick stated:

Turning to the list of factors which may support a variance from the 30 percent standard, the court first considers the complexity of the litigation. In the court’s view this case was somewhere near the middle of the range. While more complex than many tort cases and contract disputes, the case at bar was less complex than most medical malpractice, products liability, and construction cases. An adjustment based on the complexity of the case is unwarranted.

The next factor is the length of trial. Trial in this case took four days. No adjustment is warranted based on the duration of the trial. 

The court finds no basis for a variance in the attorneys’ hourly rates, number of hours expended, or number of attorneys used. The fact that defendants did not include the value of the time spent at trial by Municipal Attorney Reeves does warrant an upward adjustment, because it demonstrates a significant effort to minimize fees.  Mr. Reeves put a lot of time into the trial. His performance at trial was outstanding. An upward adjustment of $1,500 is appropriate.

Next to be considered is the reasonableness of the claims and defenses.  Although the court found for Mitchell on the false arrest claim based on the parties’ summary judgment briefing, after seeing all of the evidence at trial, it became apparent to the court that Mitchell’s position was unreasonable. Mitchell sought to play the role of  the victim of outrageous official behavior warranting an award of punitive damages, when in fact she was simply a citizen caught up by chance in an effort to protect public safety and apprehend a bank robber. What happened to Mitchell did not warrant a lawsuit attempting to convert the unfortunate consequence that befell her into a picture of pervasive malfeasance by local authorities. An upward adjustment of $5,000 is warranted for the unreasonableness of Mitchell’s claims.

The court will not make a further upward adjustment for vexatious or bad faith conduct. Mitchell herself did not act vexatiously or in bad faith. She had a very frightening experience. She felt wronged. She sought help from her lawyer.  Unfortunately, her lawyer did not help her understand that sometimes the price citizens must pay to protect society from dangerous criminals is exposure to frightening situations.

The next factor is the relationship between the amount of work performed and the significance of the matters at stake. Here, the defendants confronted an almost messianic attack by plaintiff’s lawyer who was attempting to show that fundamental, carefully crafted, and necessary police procedures must be thrown. He was also asking for a lot of money. Thus, while a great deal of work was performed by defense counsel, the level of work was consistent with the significance of the matters at stake.

Next, the court must determine whether the burden of the fee award might deter others similarly situated to plaintiff from the voluntary use of the courts. The court’s assessment is that an award in the size contemplated here will not deter persons with legitimate civil rights claims or state law tort claims from making use of the courts.

Mitchell has appealed to the 9th Circuit. 

Mitchell v. Anchorage Police Department, 3:05-cv-00273 JWS (D.Alaska Order of October 14, 2008)

Isaac and Moshe Zorea represented the plaintiff.  James Reeves and Joyce Weaver Johnson from the Anchorage Municpal Attorney’s Office represented the defendants.

H/T: Lee Holen