Giombetti v. Wolf
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-00873
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Giombetti v. Wolf, Chief Judge Tunheim denied the Giombettis’ attorney-fee motion because they were not prevailing parties under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Mayra and Thomas Giombetti were denied an award of attorney’s fees; the defendants were not required to pay those fees.
What happened
In Giombetti v. Wolf, Mayra and Thomas Giombetti sought relief concerning an immigration waiver application. The court denied their request for a temporary restraining order, and Mayra later filed the application, which the appropriate agency accepted. The case was then dismissed.
The Giombettis requested attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court explained that fees generally require the plaintiffs to be a “prevailing party”—someone who obtained court-ordered relief that changed the parties’ legal relationship and benefited the plaintiff. The court rejected the argument that the lawsuit was simply the catalyst for the agency’s voluntary change in conduct.
The court ruled that the Giombettis had not shown they were prevailing parties because the court denied their requested injunctive relief and dismissed many, though not all, claims. Chief Judge Tunheim therefore denied the motion for attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Giombetti v. Wolf · No. 0:20-cv-00873
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 20, 2020
Background
Mayra Giombetti and her husband, Thomas Giombetti, brought the action concerning an immigration waiver application. The court previously granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denied the Giombettis’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Instead, the court urged Giombetti to file the waiver application as soon as possible. She later filed the application, and the appropriate agency accepted it. The case was then dismissed.
The Giombettis moved for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Attorney’s-fee standard
The Equal Access to Justice Act permits attorney’s-fee awards in certain circumstances. One requirement is that the claimant be a “prevailing party.” The court explained that a prevailing party must obtain actual relief on the merits that materially changes the legal relationship between the parties by changing the defendant’s conduct in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. The change must result from a judgment or consent decree.
The court also discussed the Supreme Court’s rejection of the “catalyst theory,” under which a plaintiff seeks fees by arguing that the lawsuit caused the defendant to change its conduct voluntarily. The court stated that merely withstanding a motion to dismiss is not enough to make a plaintiff a prevailing party, and neither is a defendant’s voluntary change in conduct—even when that change is what the plaintiff wanted the lawsuit to achieve.
Court’s reasoning
The Giombettis appeared to rely on the catalyst theory, arguing that their lawsuit compelled U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to change its prelitigation position. The court rejected that argument. It noted that the court had denied the Giombettis’ request for injunctive relief and had dismissed many, though not all, of the claims in the First Amended Complaint. Because denial of a motion to dismiss was insufficient for a fee award and the catalyst theory was unavailable, the Giombettis had not shown that they were prevailing parties under the Act.
Disposition
The court ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, Docket No. 44, was DENIED. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.