Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court 5/29/01 held that a party to a mooted lawsuit is not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as a "prevailing party" for purposes of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 under the "catalyst" theory, wherein a party that has produced its desired result by causing a voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct would be considered to be "prevailing." The Court, noting that its holding applies equally to "prevailing party" fee-shifting provisions in a variety of federal statutes, held that some legal change must be ordered by the court in order for a party to be considered "prevailing." The Court also strongly suggested, contrary to dictum from previous cases, that private settlements, not enforced through consent decrees, cannot produce "prevailing" parties for fee-shifting purposes. The case is of importance to all defendants in actions under statutes with fee-shifting provisions, who may contemplate disposing of those cases by modifying their conduct, or by settlement.