## Facts

- A class of women, medical providers, and related organizations challenged amendments to Utah’s Abortion Act under federal and state constitutional theories.
- During the litigation, enforcement of challenged provisions was enjoined pending final rulings.
- On the merits, the court invalidated key provisions, including a legislatively fixed “viability date” and a spousal-notification requirement, but rejected many other claims and theories.
- After the merits rulings, both sides moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, each claiming “prevailing party” status.
- Plaintiffs sought fees that included work by out-of-state counsel billed at rates above the local market and supported by time records the court found insufficiently specific in several respects.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs were “prevailing parties” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 despite losing most of their claims, given that they obtained injunctive and declaratory relief invalidating major statutory provisions.
2. Whether defendants qualified as prevailing parties entitled to fees, and if so, whether plaintiffs’ claims met the standard for shifting fees to defendants in civil-rights litigation.
3. What attorneys’ fees and costs were reasonable, including the proper market for hourly rates, treatment of inadequate documentation, duplication, travel time, and time spent on non-legal public-relations activities.
4. How any fee award should be reduced to reflect plaintiffs’ limited success.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs were treated as the prevailing parties because they obtained meaningful relief invalidating significant provisions of the statute.
- Plaintiffs’ requested fees were substantially reduced for limited success, unreasonable rates compared to the local market, inadequate or vague billing records, duplication of effort, and non-compensable items.
- The court applied local (Utah) market rates and declined to award higher out-of-district rates absent sufficient justification.
- Time billed for travel was reduced or excluded where not shown to involve substantive legal work.
- Time devoted to public-relations or media-oriented activities was disallowed as outside compensable legal work under § 1988.
- Defendants’ request for fees was denied; the case did not meet the standard for awarding fees to prevailing defendants.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff is a prevailing party under § 1988 when the litigation yields enforceable relief that materially alters the parties’ legal relationship, even if the plaintiff loses on many theories.
- The “degree of success obtained” is the central consideration in setting a reasonable fee, and limited success warrants downward adjustment from the lodestar.
- Reasonable hourly rates generally are determined by the local forum market; higher out-of-district rates require a specific justification.
- The fee applicant bears the burden of submitting sufficiently detailed, task-specific time records; inadequate documentation permits reductions or exclusions.
- Work not reasonably related to advancing the litigation (including public-relations efforts) is not compensable under § 1988.
- A prevailing defendant in civil-rights litigation may recover fees only when the plaintiff’s claims are frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; partial weakness in some claims does not suffice when the suit produced substantial relief.

## Conclusion

The court awarded plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs as prevailing parties but imposed major reductions based on limited success, local-rate limits, inadequate documentation, and exclusion of travel and public-relations time, while denying defendants’ fee request because the action was not frivolous.


Jane L. v. Bangerter, 828 F. Supp. 1544 (D. Utah 1993)