Bone v. Hibernia Bank, C-72-794.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. C-72-794.,C-72-794. |
| Citation | 354 F. Supp. 310 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Donald L. BONE, Plaintiff, v. The HIBERNIA BANK and Michael Shields, Defendants. |
Donald L. Bone, in pro. per.
John L. Hosack, Tobin & Tobin, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.
Post-judgment motions in this action have been made by both sides. Plaintiff has moved for allowance of attorney's fees and costs and defendants have in effect moved for reconsideration of the Court's opinion filed December 15, 1972, and the judgment entered on December 19, 1972.
Plaintiff appeared in pro. per. It is well settled that no attorney's fee is allowable in such circumstances. Picking v. Penna. R. Co., 11 F.R.D. 71 (N.D.Pa., 1951), appeal dis'd 201 F.2d 672 (3d Cir., 1953), cert. denied 345 U.S. 1000, 73 S.Ct. 1144, 97 L.Ed. 1406 (1947), rehearing denied, 346 U.S. 843, 74 S.Ct. 18, 98 L.Ed. 363 (1947); Owens v. Modern Loan Company, C. C. H. Consumer Credit Guide ¶ 99,099 (W.D.Ky., 1972).
On further consideration, the Court has determined that plaintiff should, however, be permitted to recover his costs, which shall be settled under L.R. 124.
The Court has given careful consideration to the briefs and arguments of defendants with respect to the principal holding in this case, but remains of the opinion that its prior disposition was correct. Defendant strongly emphasizes a publication of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System entitled What you ought to know about Truth in Lending. The pamphlet reprints the law and Regulation Z and also contains "outside material" consisting of questions and answers, discussion of various points, some forms, etc. It states at the beginning:
(Underscored matter in boldface type in the original.)
Even without this caveat, the pamphlet lacks the force of law and the Bank was not, as it argues, entitled to rely upon it, at least as against private persons.1 Cf. Dixon v. United States, 381 U.S. 68, 85 S.Ct. 1301, 14 L.Ed.2d 223 (1965); Adler v. Comm'r, 330 F.2d 91 (9th Cir., 1964).
Defendants' motions are therefore denied.
It is ordered:
1. The opinion filed on December 15, 1972, is modified by striking the last sentence.
2....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Batchelor
...It is the general rule that pro se litigants should not recover attorney fees for successful litigation. See, e.g., Bone v. Hibernia Bank, 354 F.Supp. 310, 311 (N.D.Cal.1973); O'Neil v. Schuckardt, 112 Idaho 472, 480, 733 P.2d 693, 706 (1986). Cf. Alaska Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Juneau v. ......
-
Basham v. Finance America Corp.
...at the bottom of the form states. See Johnson v. Associates Finance, Inc., 369 F.Supp. 1121, 1123 (S.D.Ill.1974); Bone v. Hibernia Bank, 354 F.Supp. 310, 311 (N.D.Cal.1973), Reversed on other grounds, 493 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1974). Reliance on such a form, where it is contrary to the law of ......
-
Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com.
...are not entitled to recover attorney fees. (Hannon v. Security Nat. Bank (9th Cir. 1976) 537 F.2d 327, 328-329; Bone v. Hibernia Bank (N.D.Cal.1973) 354 F.Supp. 310, 311; Parquit Corp. v. Ross (1975) 273 Or. 900, 543 P.2d 1070, 1071.) These cases, however, all focus exclusively on the issue......
-
Ellis v. Cassidy
...fees to the layperson who appears pro se. See, e. g., Smith v. UPI, 8 E.P.D. P 9512, p. 5282 (S.D.N.Y.1974); Bone v. Hibernia Bank, 354 F.Supp. 310 (N.D.Cal.1973). No federal court appears to have considered whether attorneys' fees may be awarded to an attorney who represents himself in a n......