USCA1 Opinion

April 14, 1994

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________

No. 93-2158

COLLEEN FRAZIER, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER, MAINE DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

___________________

Thomas H. Kelly, on brief for appellant.

_______________
Michael E.
Carpenter, Attorney General,
and Mary B.
_______________________
________
Najarian, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
________

__________________
__________________

Per Curiam.
__________
Dependent

Children recipients,

reduction of
42 U.S.C.

Appellants, a class of Aid to Families with

appeal the

their request for attorneys'

1988.

We

reverse the award

district court for further

district court's
fees, pursuant to
and remand to

proceedings consistent with

the
this

opinion.
I
Appellants brought a class action suit against appellee,
Commissioner of
Commissioner],
pursuant to

the Maine Department of

seeking

42 U.S.C.

declaratory
651

and

Human Services [the

injunctive

et seq., 42 U.S.C.

relief

1983, and

__ ___
the

fifth and

fourteenth

Constitution.
violated
various

Appellants

alleged

her statutory and/or

situations where

support owed
family.

amendments to

by

the

the United

that the

States

Commissioner

constitutional obligations in
Commissioner collected

noncustodial parent

to

more

child

than

one

They alleged in particular that the Commissioner (1)

had no policies or procedures to ensure that amounts of child

support

paid by

proportionately

noncustodial parent

divided

Commissioner received
due; (2) had

between

families

less than the total

no policies

child support orders were

or procedures to

and (3)

when

and
the

amount of support
insure that

the

not inequitable in arbitrarily and

capriciously awarding disproportionate

families;

were equitably

had failed

amounts to

to follow

different

federally mandated

-2-

child support review and

two issues were
the parties in

modification procedures.

settled by consent decrees, entered

May 1992 and March 1993.

The first
into by

The consent decree

also provided

that the

final

claim would

be dismissed

by

appellants without prejudice.

After approval of the
attorneys'
The

The

fees of $12,210.91 pursuant

district

parties" but

consent decree, appellants sought

court found

to 42 U.S.C.

that appellants

reduced the amount

1988.

were "prevailing

of the award

to $3,620.00.

only issue on appeal is the reasonableness of the amount

awarded.
II
Although the district
in fee

setting matters,

Systems, Inc., 746

____________
must "make

court possesses broad

see, e.g.,
___ ___

F.2d 78,

concrete

Segal v.
_____

86 (1st Cir.

findings and

discretion

Gilbert Color
_____________

1984), the

explain

its

court

reasoning,"

Weinberger v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., 925 F.2d 518, 527

__________
___________________________
(1st Cir. 1991)
that,
best

(citing cases).

has long

held

unless an alternative method is required by law, it is

to calculate

hours reasonably
rate.

This court

attorneys' fees

based

expended multiplied by a

Id.; see also Hensley

__
___ ____ _______

on the

number of

reasonable hourly

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436

_________

(1983) (approving this method for awards pursuant to

1988).

Once the court has ascertained the "lodestar" amount,

it may

adjust this figure

as appropriate.

-3-

Segal 746
_____

F.2d at

87.

This

approach

is recommended

danger of arbitrariness in
at

both

because

it limits

the

fee setting, Weinberger, 925 F.2d

__________

526, and because it allows for "meaningful review" of the

award by an appellate court, Furtado v. Bishop, 635 F.2d 915,

_______
______
920 (1st Cir. 1980).
In

the instant case, the district court did not use the

"lodestar" approach.
represents

Instead, the court found that $3,620.00

reasonable
in

compensation

Plaintiffs'

counsel

this

case,

account, on

balance, the difficulty

contested, the significance of the

in the

settlement of

professional
the

task

of

the case,

diligence

to

the

taking

into

of the issues
result obtained

and the

and experience

representing

Plaintiffs'

level of
brought to
interests

herein by their counsel.

The court made
hours

no findings

as to the

reasonable number

of

expended on the case or the reasonable hourly rate for

counsel.
Appellee asserts that the court was not required to use
the

lodestar

approach

in

this

case

because

appellants

achieved only de
__
calls attention
Hobby, 113
_____

minimis success on their

_______
to the

S.Ct. 566

critical factor'
award

Supreme

claims.

Court ruling

(1992), which

Appellee

in Farrar
______

stated that

"'the most

in determining the reasonableness

'is the degree of

the success obtained,'"

v.

of a fee
id. at 574
__

-4-

(quoting Hensley, 461 U.S.

_______
where

a plaintiff

has

obtained only

court may award low fees

hours

at 436), and that, in

some cases

minimal success,

the

without "multiplying 'the number of

reasonably expended

by a

reasonably

hourly

rate,'" id. at 575 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433).

__
_______
We do not find the reasoning in Farrar applicable in the
______
instant

case.

Farrar
______

was a

damage

action in

which

the

indisputably de minimis success of plaintiff was evidenced by

__ _______

his having been awarded only $1 of the $17 million in damages

he sought.
an

See id.
___ __

The instant case,

on the other hand, is

action for injunctive and declaratory relief in which the

degree of success is not obvious, not discussed in any detail

by the district court, and very much disputed by the parties.
Moreover,

the district

court

degree of

success affected its

these circumstances, we think

court first

calculate the

determining

appellants'

has not

made

clear how

the

overall fee assessment.

In

it necessary that the district

lodestar amount, and

degree

of

success,

Enterprises Corp. v. Rivera-Rios, 846 F.2d

________________
___________

then, after
see
___

Culebras
________

94, 102 (1st Cir.

1988) (district court in best position to determine degree of

success),

adjust

the

determination, see,
___

lodestar

amount

e.g., id. (no abuse

___
__

in

light

of

that

of discretion where

district court reduced lodestar figure by 50 percent in light

of

plaintiff's lack

limited

of

success on

success on claim for

claim

for damages

injunctive relief).

-5-

and

There may

be situations apart
for

from Farrar
______

where adequate

explanation

dispensing with the lodestar might excuse any attempt to

compute

the

lodestar

as

a starting

point;

but

no

such

explanation has been attempted in this case and we think that

it

will be

more efficient

here for

the district

compute the lodestar and then make any adjustments

court to
it thinks

warranted.
Appellee
reducing
because

also

asserts

the

appellants' request, did

appellants

did

determining how much

not

district

not abuse

provide

The

proper

in

basis

for

successful and

failure to particularize time may

cases restrict an appellant's right

award on appeal.

court,

its discretion

time was spent on their

unsuccessful claims.
in some

that

to challenge an

See Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581

___ ______
________

F.2d 275, 279

(1st Cir. 1978) (court will not view with sympathy claim that
court awarded unreasonably low
partially

successful and

fees where plaintiff was only

records do

not provide

distinguishing time spent on particular claims).

this

case, appellants

did provide

the district

detailed specific documentation of

basis for
However, in
court with

how their time was spent.

Moreover, appellants' claims arguably involved a "common core

of facts" and
made

the

were "based on

division

of

time

difficult.

See
___

Hensley,
_______

situation, a

reasonable fee

related legal theories"

which

on

basis

claim

461 U.S.
"may

at

to
435.

claim

In such

include compensation

a
for

-6-

legal

work

Garrity v.
_______

performed on

the

unsuccessful

Sununu, 752 F.2d 727,

______

determination

of

whether

or

claims."

734 (1st Cir.

not

appellants'

Id.;
__

1984).

The

claims were

"interrelated" is again best made by the district court.

See
___

Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 941 (1st Cir. 1992).

_______
______
For these reasons, we vacate the award and remand to the
district court

for further

proceedings.

In

remanding this

case, we do not suggest that the dollar amount awarded by the

district

court

(absent unusual
adhere to

was

unreasonable.

circumstances and an

We

only

require

that

explanation) the court

the normal lodestar procedures

in calculating the

award.
The award of attorneys' fees is vacated and remanded.
_______
________

-7-