Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Michael R. Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles, and Ira Reiner, City Attorney John T. Neville, Assistant City Attorney Raymond J. Fuentes, Deputy City Attorney Richard William Papke, Los Angeles Police Officer Joseph Charles Brazas, Los Angeles Police Officer Gordon Cohn
Citations: 741 F.2d 281; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19218Docket: 83-6242
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 24, 1984; Federal Appellate Court
Michael R. Mitchell filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for attorney's fees related to a settlement involving his former client, Cohn, against the City of Los Angeles. Jurisdiction was established under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the district court dismissed Mitchell's complaint regarding the city. The court's decision was affirmed on appeal. During settlement negotiations in June 1982, Mitchell proposed a settlement of $4,400 while leaving attorney's fees for judicial determination. However, the city rejected this, and Cohn settled for $4,000, explicitly waiving all claims for attorney's fees. The settlement stipulated that the payment was a full resolution of all claims, including attorney's fees. Mitchell did not claim a mutual mistake regarding the settlement terms but argued for an independent right to pursue fees from the city. The court did not address whether attorneys can claim fees under § 1988, noting that the civil rights claimant is typically the real party in interest for such claims. The summary of legal precedents indicated that attorneys generally need to join their clients in fee recovery actions. The ruling underscored the necessity for clarity and mutual agreement on fee waivers within settlement stipulations. Mitchell may have a potential right to seek attorney's fees under section 1988, but the controlling stipulation and settlement bar such a claim. A civil rights plaintiff's release of all claims, coupled with a stipulation for dismissal without costs, waives the right to attorney's fees, as established in Brown. However, if a settlement agreement does not address attorney's fees, prevailing civil rights claimants can still pursue them under section 1988, as seen in James, where the court retained the authority to determine fees. Since Mitchell did not appeal the dismissal order, the question of the settlement's waiver of attorney's fees is not currently under review. The court's decision is affirmed by Judge William H. Orrick, Jr.