Westmark Development Corporati v. City of Burien

MEMORANDUM

The district court held that it lacked discretion to award attorney’s fees to Westmark Development Corporation and Trizek Investment Corporation (collectively “Westmark”) unless it first resolved the merits of Westmark’s substantive due process claim. The court erred in so holding. After Westmark obtained the $10.7 million verdict from the City of Burien, it had obtained all the relief it had sought from the City except for attorney’s fees. After that favorable state court determination, the district court should have invoked the principle of constitutional avoidance. Gerling Global Reins. Corp. of Am. v. Garamendi, 400 F.3d 803 , 806-08 (9th Cir. 2005); Carreras v. City of Anaheim, 768 F.2d 1039, 1042-43, 1050 (9th Cir.1985), abrogated on other grounds by Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.4th 352 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 993 P.2d 334, 350 (2000). At that point, Westmark was eligible to recover attorney’s fees on its § 1983 claim, provided two conditions were met: (1) its federal constitutional claim is “substantial” under Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537-38 , 94 S.Ct. 1372 , 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); and (2) its state law claims and its…