Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:15-cv-04959
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Buffin v. City, Judge Rogers ordered California to pay plaintiffs $1.95 million in attorneys’ fees and costs under Section 1988.
The plaintiffs received a $1,950,000 fee and cost award, and the State of California was ordered to pay it. The award arose from the plaintiffs’ civil-rights litigation against the San Francisco Sheriff.
What happened
In Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco, the plaintiffs and the San Francisco Sheriff agreed that the plaintiffs were entitled to $1.95 million in attorneys’ fees and costs after obtaining an injunction for a certified class. The court had to decide whether California, rather than the Sheriff, should pay that award.
The court concluded that the Sheriff acted as California’s agent when enforcing the state bail schedule. Although California had earlier been dismissed as a defendant, the court held that federal law allowed the fee award to be charged to the State. California did not object to the agreed amount.
Judge Rogers ordered the State of California to pay the plaintiffs $1,950,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs under Section 1988.
The detailed version
- Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 4:15-cv-04959
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 23, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs and the San Francisco Sheriff filed a joint notice of agreement concerning an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. They agreed that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties because the litigation resulted in injunctive relief for a certified class. The parties stipulated to an award of $1,950,000, which included fees and costs and was described as a substantial reduction from the amount calculated under the lodestar method.
The remaining issue was whether the State of California could be ordered to pay the award. The parties argued that the Sheriff enforced the state bail schedule under state law and therefore acted as a state actor, making California responsible for the fees and costs. The court invited California to submit its position. California did not object to the stipulated amount.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on Hutto v. Finney, which held that a fee award under Section 1988 may be directed against a state even when the state or one of its departments was not named as a party, if the lawsuit was effectively brought against the State. The court also cited Supreme Court and appellate decisions explaining that state immunity does not prevent an attorneys’ fee award connected to prospective injunctive relief when officials acted for the State.
Earlier in the case, the court had dismissed California and the Attorney General as improper defendants under the rule requiring a civil-rights plaintiff seeking to stop enforcement of a state law to sue the officials responsible for enforcing it. The court had determined that the Sheriff was the proper defendant because the Sheriff enforced the state bail schedule. It had also dismissed the City and County of San Francisco after finding that the Sheriff was acting for the State, not under a municipal policy or practice.
Based on those earlier findings, the court concluded that the Sheriff’s challenged enforcement actions were undertaken as an agent of California. The court stated that California’s earlier dismissal based on state immunity did not prevent California from being responsible for the reasonable fees incurred in the action against the Sheriff.
Disposition
The court granted the parties’ stipulated request and ordered the State of California to pay the plaintiffs $1,950,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The opinion does not state that the fee award was entered with or without prejudice.
Judge
The order was signed by Yvonne Rogers, United States District Court Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.