Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order vacating an award of attorney’s fees and requiring the plaintiffs to refund $116,359.69. The court held that the prior appellate determination that no Article III case or controversy existed permitted relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), because the TRO and declaratory judgment underlying the fee award had effectively been vacated. The dispute concerned Houston Charter provisions restricting petition circulation to Houston residents and registered voters.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly vacated the attorney-fee and expense award under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) after Pool II held that no Article III case or controversy existed from the beginning.
- Whether the City’s failure to separately appeal the fee award precluded Rule 60(b)(5) relief.
- Whether vacating the fee award caused unfair prejudice sufficient to defeat Rule 60(b)(5) relief.
Holdings
- The district court properly granted Rule 60(b)(5) relief because Pool II vacated the judgment and remanded for dismissal based on the conclusion that no case or controversy existed from the outset, thereby removing the legal foundation for the TRO, declaratory judgment, and attorney-fee award.
- The City’s failure to appeal the fee award did not preclude Rule 60(b)(5) relief because the City challenged the award solely on the ground that the underlying merits judgment had been vacated.
- Plaintiffs did not demonstrate the additional unfair prejudice required to overcome an otherwise proper Rule 60(b)(5) motion.
Key quotations
“Consequent to Pool II’s directive for dismissal because there was no case or controversy to begin with, the jurisdictional grounds upon which Appellants’ TRO and declaratory judgment rested no longer remained.” (at 11)
“With the footing of the fee award now removed, the district court acted well within its discretion in granting the City’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5).” (at 14)
Factual background
Houston’s Charter required petition circulators to be qualified voters, meaning Houston residents registered to vote in Houston, and required notarized attestations of those qualifications. Plaintiffs, who did not reside in Houston and were not registered to vote there, sought to circulate a petition concerning campaign-contribution limits for municipal candidates. After the City stated that it would not enforce the requirement, plaintiffs sued; the district court issued a temporary restraining order and later entered declaratory relief, after which the City enacted Ordinance No. 2022-455 eliminating the challenged requirement.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs challenged Houston Charter provisions requiring initiative and referendum petition circulators to be Houston residents and registered voters. The district court granted a temporary restraining order, later entered declaratory relief, and awarded plaintiffs attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). In Pool II, the Fifth Circuit held that the parties’ agreement that the provisions were unconstitutional eliminated Article III adversity, vacated the final judgment, and remanded for dismissal without prejudice. On remand, the district court vacated the fee award under Rule 60(b)(5) and ordered repayment; this appeal followed.