Daniels v. Alphabet Inc.

Background

Marshall Daniels sued Alphabet Inc. and other defendants after Google and YouTube removed two videos from YouTube. He alleged that the removals violated the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and also brought state-law claims. The court dismissed all of his claims, allowing amendment of the state-law breach-of-contract claim but dismissing the other claims with prejudice. After Daniels filed an amended complaint, the court dismissed it with prejudice. Daniels appealed, but the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute after he did not file an opening brief.

The defendants then moved under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) for $38,576 in attorneys’ fees incurred defending against Daniels’s § 1983 First Amendment claim. Section 1988 permits a prevailing defendant to recover fees from an unsuccessful civil-rights plaintiff only in exceptional circumstances, including when the claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

Frivolousness of the First Amendment Claim

The defendants argued that Daniels’s claim lacked a factual and legal basis from the outset. They contended that § 1983 applies to conduct under color of state law, while Daniels’s allegations concerned members of Congress and private entities. Daniels responded that members of Congress could be treated as state actors and that he was pursuing a novel legal theory in good faith.

The court rejected those arguments. It concluded that Daniels’s claim was not based on any theory that the defendants acted under color of state law. The court also found that Daniels had not stated a plausible theory for holding private entities liable as government actors in the circumstances presented. It said the theories were either foreclosed by existing precedent or meritless and held that the First Amendment claim was frivolous from the outset.

Amount of the Award

The court explained that a defendant may recover only fees that would not have been incurred but for the frivolous claim. The defendants’ billing records were not separated by claim, but the court determined that the First Amendment claim was distinct from Daniels’s state-law claims. The claims involved different legal theories and relied on different facts: the First Amendment claim concerned alleged government action, while the state-law claims concerned YouTube’s terms, guidelines, removal process, and payment arrangements.

The defendants estimated that 20 percent of their total fees were attributable solely to the First Amendment claim. After reviewing the billing records, counsel’s supporting declaration, the briefing, the oral argument, and the court’s understanding of the case, the court found that at least 20 percent of the fees were devoted exclusively to that claim. It concluded that $38,576 was a reasonable amount. The court also considered Daniels’s financial circumstances and noted that he had not argued that the requested award was burdensome.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and awarded them $38,576. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the file. This was an ancillary fee ruling rather than a new decision on the underlying First Amendment claim.