Brown v. Stackler
| Decision Date | 21 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2503,78-2503 |
| Citation | 612 F.2d 1057 |
| Parties | Silas K. BROWN, Community Thrift Club, Inc., a not-for-profit organization, and Rev. James Murphy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald E. STACKLER, Superintendent, Department of Registration and Education, Bernard Carey, State's Attorney, and William J. Scott, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Michael G. Stein, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Stuart D. Gordon, Asst. State's Atty., Charles J. Pesek, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Before SPRECHER, CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, Senior District Judge. *
The Court, having read the briefs, considered the record, and heard oral arguments on behalf of the parties, concludes that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.
The only issue relates to counsel fees. The law is plain. In Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 247, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the "American Rule" that counsel fees are ordinarily allowed only pursuant to statute. Congress in response, by the act of October 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, amended 42 U.S.C. 1988 to provide that in a civil rights case "the court, in its discretion, May allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." (Emphasis supplied).
As the District Court noted, most of appellant's court work consisted of motions for extension of time. The six-page complaint raised an issue which everyone knew would be controlled by the results of litigation pending in other courts.
Appellant simply awaited the outcome of Va. Pharmacy Board v. Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 762, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976), which led to a favorable disposition of appellant's case involving price advertising of eyeglasses.
Plaintiff's complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 sought to enjoin enforcement on the ground of unconstitutionality of Illinois statutes prohibiting the advertisement of the prices charged for dispensing prescription eyeglasses. 1 Named as defendants were the Superintendent of the Illinois Department of Registration, the Attorney General of Illinois, and the State's Attorney of Cook County.
The only relief sought was to enjoin enforcement of the Illinois statute. As a practical matter, there was little danger of adverse action by defendants during the pendency of the litigation in the Supreme Court which finally resulted in an outcome favorable to plaintiffs' position. In fact the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for a restraining order because of lack of emergency. That court held defendants' motion to dismiss under advisement until the Supreme Court's decision in the Virginia case, and then entered judgment for plaintiffs, holding the prohibition of price information unconstitutional.
Under the 1976 amendment authorizing award of attorney's fees in this type of case, the courts ordinarily approve a suitable fee as a matter of course. Under ordinary circumstances an appropriate fee would be awarded routinely. As a matter of fact, in the case at bar, under the District Court's order of April 4, 1977, enjoining enforcement of the statute, leave was given to file a petition for attorney's fees.
It was then that appellants' counsel submitted a claim which was so intolerably inflated that the District Court was warranted in departing from the usual practice and reacting vigorously to prevent such abuse of the court's authority to award reasonable compensation to counsel.
Appellants' counsel claimed over 800 hours of billable time. Manifestly it was utterly unreasonable to expend that amount of time on a plain and simple case, which would almost automatically be disposed of by the decision in the Virginia case whose determination was being awaited.
Appellants' counsel admits that much of whatever research was done was done by law students helping him on a volunteer basis. Little legal skill was involved,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Chicken Antitrust Litigation
... ... Harold C. Brown ... But before actually computing a lodestar award, the court first must dispose of a matter troubling it for some time, the fee ... The question remains though whether an award can be based on his application as amended. In at least one reported case, Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057 (7th Cir.1980), a court denied any fee to an attorney who filed what was believed to be an excessive application, even though the ... ...
-
Copeland v. Marshall
... ... No reduction in fee is appropriate where the "issue was all part and parcel of one matter," Lamphere v. Brown Univ., 610 F.2d 46, 47 (1st Cir. 1979), but only when the claims asserted "are truly fractionable," id ... 19 See, e. g., Johnson, 488 F.2d at ... 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Reynolds v. Coomey, 567 F.2d 1166, 1167 (1st Cir. 1978) (duplication of effort); cf. Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057, at 1059, (7th Cir., 1980) ("utterly Unreasonable" amounts of time) ... 50 The District Court believed that inadequate partner time ... ...
-
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH Inst. v. ALNOR
... ... ( Serrano IV, supra , 32 Cal.3d at p. 635, 186 Cal.Rptr. 754, 652 P.2d 985, quoting Brown v. Stackler (7th Cir.1980) 612 F.2d 1057, 1059.) The Serrano IV court noted in a lengthy citation the numerous ways a party may employ to inflate ... ...
-
Peter by and through Peter v. Wedl
... ... Defendants rely on cases such as Thelen Oil Co. v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co., 962 F.2d 821 (8th Cir.1992) and Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057, 1059 (7th Cir.1980) ... Since we conclude that Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of attorneys' ... ...
-
Prisoners' Rights
...(5th Cir. 1998) (denial of attorney’s fees warranted where fees so excessive “it shocks the conscience of the court”); Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057, 1059 (7th Cir. 1980) (denial of attorney’s fees warranted because plaintiff’s request was “outrageously excessive” and “inflated to an in......
-
Attorneys Fees in Civil Rights Cases
...v. Kendrick, 944 F.2d 949, 958 (1st Cir. 1991); Fair Housing Council v. Landow, 999 F.2d 92, 96-97 (4th Cir. 1993); Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057, 1059 (7th Cir. 1980). 98. Id. 99. Ellis v. Univ. of Kan. Med. Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186, 1204 (10th Cir. 1998). 100. Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d ......