Morrow v. Jones
Morrow
Court
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Case Summary
Case: 23-40546 Document: 107-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 10, 2025 No. 23-40546 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk James Morrow, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus O’Neal Jones, Jr., in his Official Capacity as the current Mayor of the City of Tenaha, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:08-CV-288 ______________________________ Before Haynes, Willett, and Oldham*, Circuit Judges. Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of an attorney-fee award in a class action. Because the class did not receive notice of the motion for attorney fees as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), we VACATE and REMAND. _____________________ * Judge Oldham concurs in the judgment only. Case: 23-40546 Document: 107-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 No. 23-40546 I This case originated in 2008 as a class action against various City of Tenaha and Shelby County officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs alleged that the City and County Defendants had “developed an illegal ‘stop and seize’ practice of targeting, stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from individuals who are or appear to be, members of a racial or ethnic minority or their passengers.” The parties negotiated a settlement agreement, which primarily consisted of a consent decree. The consent decree required Defendants to follow procedures for a period of years to ensure that Defendants’ future policing practices did not result in the same or similar illegal traffic stops alleged in the lawsuit. The consent decree also imposed a court-appointed monitor who oversaw compliance and produced quarterly compliance reports. The parties then reviewed these reports before they were submitted to the district court. Under the consent decree, the parties also agreed that Defendants would pay fees and expenses directly to class counsel. The original consent decree was entered in 2013, and it was amended and extended in 2019. The amended consent decree expired in July 2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the consent decree for a second additional term, but in September 2020, the district court denied the motion and found “that the purposes of the Consent Decree ha[d] been fulfilled.” The next month, the County Defendants settled their remaining obligations to Plaintiffs, leaving only the City Defendants remaining in this appeal. While the case proceeded in district court, class counsel filed four motions for attorney fees. The district court granted the first three of these motions, awarding a total of $324,773.90 in attorney fees and expenses for the period between September 2013 and March 2020. 2 Case: 23-40546 Document: 107-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 No. 23-40546 In their fourth motion for attorney fees, Plaintiffs requested $88,553.33 for unpaid fees between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. This work included hours spent by attorneys Timothy Garrigan and David Craig pursuing and recovering attorney fees, monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the consent decrees, negotiating a settlement with the County Defendants, and other matters. The district court initially denied the fourth motion for fees as untimely, but, on appeal, we vacated that decision and remanded the case.1 On reconsideration, the district court awarded $16,020 in attorney fees. In calculating the lodestar,2 it reduced Garrigan’s and Craig’s hourly rates. It then found that the only hours reasonably expended in connection with the City Defendants were 50 percent of the hours related to recovering attorney fees and 80 percent of the hours related to monitoring Defendants’ compliance. Finally, the district court held that this was not an “exceptional” case that warranted a
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
Case: 23-40546 Document: 107-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________
FILED
June 10, 2025
No. 23-40546
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
James Morrow,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
O’Neal Jones, Jr., in his Official Capacity as the current Mayor of the City of Tenaha,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:08-CV-288
______________________________
Before Haynes, Willett, and Oldham*, Circuit Judges. Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of an attorney-fee award in a class action. Because the class did not receive notice of the motion for attorney fees as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), we VACATE and REMAND.
_____________________
*
Judge Oldham concurs in the judgment only.
Case: 23-40546 Document: 107-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2025
No. 23-40546
I
This case originated in 2008 as a class action against various City of
Tenaha and Shelby County officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs alleged that the City and County Defendants had “developed an illegal ‘stop and seize’ practice of targeting, stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from individuals who are or appear to be, members of a racial or ethnic minority or their passengers.” The parties negotiated a settlement agreement, which primarily consisted of a consent decree. The consent decree required Defendants to follow procedures for a period of years to ensure that Defendants’ future policing practices did not result in the same or similar illegal traffic stops alleged in the lawsuit. The consent decree also imposed a court-appointed monitor who oversaw compliance and produced quarterly compliance reports. The parties then reviewed these reports before they were submitted to the district court. Under the consent decree, the parties also agreed that Defendants would pay fees and expenses directly to class counsel. The original consent decree was entered in 2013, and it was amended and extended in 2019. The amended consent decree expired in July 2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the consent decree for a second additional term, but in September 2020, the district court denied the motion and found “that the purposes of the Consent Decree ha[d] been fulfilled.” The next month, the County Defendants settled their remaining obligations to Plaintiffs, leaving only the City Defendants remaining in this appeal. While the case proceeded in district court, class counsel filed four motions for attorney fees. The district court granted the first three of these motions, awarding a total of $324,773.90 in attorney fees and expenses for the period between September 2013 and March 2020.
2
Case: 23-40546 Document: 107-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2025
No. 23-40546
In their fourth motion for attorney fees, Plaintiffs requested
$88,553.33 for unpaid fees between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. This work included hours spent by attorneys Timothy Garrigan and David Craig pursuing and recovering attorney fees, monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the consent decrees, negotiating a settlement with the County Defendants, and other matters. The district court initially denied the fourth motion for fees as untimely, but, on appeal, we vacated that decision and remanded the case.1 On reconsideration, the district court awarded $16,020 in attorney fees. In calculating the lodestar,2 it reduced Garrigan’s and Craig’s hourly rates. It then found that the only hours reasonably expended in connection with the City Defendants were 50 percent of the hours related to recovering attorney fees and 80 percent of the hours related to monitoring Defendants’ compliance. Finally, the district court held that this was not an “exceptional” case that warranted a
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools