Carson
Carson v. Billings Police Department
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Kathy Carson (“Carson”) appeals the district court’s order denying her petition for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and refusing to rule on her petition for fees under the corresponding Montana statute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and hold that the district court erred by (1) finding that Carson was not a prevailing party under § 1988, and (2) refusing to award attorney’s fees that were required by the parties’ settlement agreement. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for determination of an appropriate fees award under both state and federal law.
I STANDARD OF REVIEW
“This Court reviews for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision on a motion for attorney fees.” Cline v. Indus. Maint. Eng’g & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223 , 1235 (9th Cir.2000). The panel “reviews the district court’s analysis of the law de novo and its factual determinations for clear error.” Id. “[T]he district court’s fee award will be overturned if it is based on an inaccurate view of the law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 924 (9th Cir.1996).