Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, ATTORNEYS’ FEES—Plaintiff alleging First Amendment claims awarded $113,000 in attorney’s fees on $5,000 damages recovery, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry. J.D.

The relatively modest judgment did not make the plaintiff’s victory merely technical or justify denying or proportionally reducing his fee award.

A federal district court in Colorado awarded a plaintiff who brought a civil rights claim more than $113,000 in attorney’s fees despite his recovery of only $5,000 through a Rule 68 offer of judgment. The plaintiff qualified as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the relatively modest judgment did not make his victory merely technical or justify denying or proportionally reducing his fee award. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that an offer of judgment “exclusive of costs and attorney fees” precluded a later fee request, concluding instead that the language left fees and costs to be determined separately (Irizzary v. Ingersoll, D. Colo. August 13, 2026).

First Amendment claims. The plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a police officer, arising from the plaintiff’s arrests during protest activity at Union Station in Denver, Colorado in 2019. His amended complaint alleged unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment and asserted First Amendment retaliation and freedom-of-speech claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the unlawful-arrest claim stemming from one incident but allowed the claims concerning another arrest to proceed. Trial was scheduled for January 2026; in December 2025, however, the defendant made a Rule 68 offer allowing judgment to be entered against him for $5,000, “exclusive of costs and attorney fees,” in full resolution of the plaintiff’s claims. The offer expressly disclaimed any admission of liability or damages. The plaintiff accepted, and the clerk entered judgment in his favor.

The plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees and costs under § 1988, requesting $116,616.50 in fees. Counsel had already removed entries related to other parties and reduced time by 29% to exclude work attributable to the unsuccessful claims. The defendant opposed the request, arguing that the Rule 68 offer barred fees, that the plaintiff’s $5,000 recovery represented only technical or nuisance-value success, and that the requested rates and hours were unreasonable.

Rule 68 offer. The district court first rejected the defendant’s interpretation of the Rule 68 offer, noting that section 1988 permits a prevailing party in a civil rights action to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, and a plaintiff may qualify as prevailing by succeeding on a significant issue that achieves some benefit sought through the litigation. Here, the plaintiff became a prevailing party when he accepted the offer and obtained judgment, and the phrase “exclusive of costs and attorney fees” did not eliminate the plaintiff’s right to seek those amounts. The offer did not state that $5,000 represented a total award inclusive of fees and costs; rather, the ordinary meaning of “exclusive of” indicated that fees and costs were excluded from the settlement of the underlying claims and could be determined separately. The court emphasized that the defendant bore responsibility for clearly stating if he intended his offer to include fees and costs.

Lodestar calculation. The court next calculated the lodestar by multiplying the hours reasonably expended by reasonable hourly rates. It approved all three requested rates, noting the attorneys had significant experience and maintained a significant civil rights practice; the requested paralegal rate fell within rates previously approved in the district; and the requested attorney rates were also consistent with prevailing Colorado market rates and rates approved in comparable § 1983 litigation.

The court largely approved the requested hours but found some excessive work associated with opposing the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, deducting ten hours to account for redundancy. The court declined to make additional reductions. Approximately 56 hours spent opposing summary judgment were reasonable given the constitutional and qualified-immunity issues involved and the extensive evidentiary record. The court also approved time spent preparing for trial even though the case ultimately resolved beforehand, noting the Rule 68 offer was not made until roughly a month before the scheduled trial, and counsel sought no compensation for work performed after the offer. Under those circumstances, preparing exhibits and witness lists, reviewing evidence, drafting jury instructions, and working on motions in limine constituted reasonable trial preparation.

Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff’s fee motion in part and ordered the defendant to pay $113,559.40 in attorney’s fees and $1,251.20 in costs.

The case is No. 21-cv-01490-PAB-TPO.

Judge: Brimmer, P.

Attorneys: Edward Milo Schwab (Ascend Counsel) for Abade Irizarry and Kyle Shockley. Robert N. Lyman, Denver City Attorney’s Office, for Lee Ingersoll.

Companies: City of Denver

Cases: AttorneysFees IndividualRights RemediesDamages Procedure ColoradoNews