Cupp v. Smith

Background

The court considered the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). The court stated that the case had been thoroughly litigated and that trial was scheduled to begin on April 3, 2023.

The only remaining claim arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. Cupp alleged that Andrew Smith violated his Fourth Amendment rights through a February 15, 2019, inspection or search of property at 4640 Arlington Avenue in Santa Rosa, California. The opinion states that Cupp pursued the claim against Smith in both Smith’s personal and official capacities.

Ruling

Judge Hamilton ordered that the case was “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE” as to all claims, causes of action, and parties, including the claims against Smith in both his personal and official capacities. The dismissal was based on the parties’ agreement; the order did not decide whether the alleged search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Costs and Attorney’s Fees

The stipulation reserved Smith’s right to request fees and costs and Cupp’s right to oppose such a request. The court stated that Smith, as the prevailing party, could submit a bill of costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and the court’s local rule.

The court also stated that an unsuccessful § 1983 plaintiff may be ordered to pay attorney’s fees only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Smith could file a fee petition, but the court said it would be hard-pressed to find an attorney-fee award appropriate because Cupp’s § 1983 claim had survived to that stage of the litigation. The order did not award fees or costs.