## Facts

- Operators of assisted-living care homes were cited under a West Virginia “self-preservation” requirement after an inspection found some residents unable to evacuate without assistance.
- State officials issued cease-and-desist orders requiring the facilities to close within 30 days.
- The operators sued in federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- While the case was pending, the West Virginia Legislature repealed the self-preservation requirement.
- The district court dismissed the action as moot and denied attorney’s fees because plaintiffs obtained no judgment or court-ordered decree.
- Plaintiffs sought fees as “prevailing parties” under a catalyst theory, arguing their lawsuit caused the legislative change.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff is a “prevailing party” under the FHAA and ADA fee-shifting provisions when the defendant voluntarily changes conduct, mooting the case, without a judgment on the merits or court-ordered consent decree.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees.
- The Court held that the catalyst theory is not a permissible basis for “prevailing party” status under the FHAA and ADA.
- Because plaintiffs obtained no judicially sanctioned relief—no judgment on the merits and no court-ordered consent decree—the legislative repeal did not make them prevailing parties.

## Legal Principles

- Under federal fee-shifting statutes using “prevailing party” language, a party generally must obtain relief awarded by a court.
- “Prevailing party” status requires a judicially sanctioned material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.
- Judgments on the merits and court-ordered consent decrees satisfy this requirement; a defendant’s voluntary change in conduct does not because it lacks judicial imprimatur.
- The catalyst theory is rejected due to the statutory meaning of “prevailing party” and the practical problem of collateral litigation over causation and motive.

## Conclusion

A plaintiff cannot recover attorney’s fees as a “prevailing party” under the FHAA or ADA solely because the lawsuit allegedly prompted a voluntary change that mooted the case; fee eligibility requires court-ordered relief such as a merits judgment or a consent decree.


Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001)