FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8925655
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Sotomura v. County of Hawaii

No. 8925655 · Decided June 7, 1982
No. 8925655 · Ninth Circuit · 1982 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 7, 1982
Citation
No. 8925655
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
ORDER Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKO-PIL and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. The Sotomuras obtained a judgment in their civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Defendants appealed. After briefs were filed on the merits and on the Sotomuras’ motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, we granted the motion to dismiss. The Sotomuras now seek attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for services performed in connection with the appeal. The Sotomuras are “prevailing parties,” a prerequisite to such an award, even though they prevailed by obtaining dismissal of the appeal as untimely rather than affirmance on the merits. Hastings v. Maine-Endwell Central School District, New York, 676 F.2d 893, 896 (2d Cir. 1982). Cf. Maher v. Gayne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 , 100 S.Ct. 2570, 2575 , 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Williams v. Alioto, 625 F.2d 845, 847-48 (9th Cir. 1980). Normally fees are not awardable to a party who prevails on appeal only because of erroneous procedural or evidentiary rulings below. Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 *153 U.S. 754, 759 , 100 S.Ct. 1987, 1990 , 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). But this court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss was not interlocutory but final and, in effect, conclusively determined the “substantial rights of the parties.” Id. at 757 , 100 S.Ct. at 1989. Our dismissal contemplates no future proceedings involving the merits of the controversy which could change the favorable result obtained by the Sotomuras. Swietlowich v. County of Buchs, 620 F.2d 33 , 34 (3d Cir. 1980). Viewing the litigation as a whole, Gurule v. Wilson, 635 F.2d 782, 791 (10th Cir. 1981), the Sotomuras successfully defended the district court judgment in their favor and are “prevailing parties” under section 1988. The Sotomuras seek $34,941.40 in attorneys’ fees. Although the issues were complex, most of the legal arguments had already been briefed before the district court. The hours claimed for preparation of the briefs on appeal appear to involve some duplication and inefficiency. Upon due consideration, we award attorneys’ fees in the amount of $25,000, plus costs in the amount of $158.86. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Plain English Summary
ORDER Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKO-PIL and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
ORDER Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKO-PIL and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Sotomura v. County of Hawaii in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 7, 1982.
Use the citation No. 8925655 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →