Honea v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., Civ. A. No. 74-1259.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-1259. |
| Citation | 394 F. Supp. 201 |
| Parties | Esther HONEA, Plaintiff, v. CRESCENT FORD TRUCK SALES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Wallace C. Quinn, Lynne Rothschild Stern, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
Rutledge C. Clement, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant.
The plaintiff brought this Title VII suit, claiming sex discrimination. While settlement negotiations did take place, no meaningful progress was made until the pretrial conference — the plaintiff's attorneys refused to discuss a figure less than $6,500 plus costs and attorneys' fees; the defendant's counsel thought this to be exorbitant and, adhering to the long-standing practice of the bar, declined to make an offer, waiting for the plaintiff to reduce her offer. As a result of the court's comments at the pretrial conference, however, plaintiff's counsel apparently reappraised the claim; a lower offer was made, and the case was settled shortly thereafter for $3,000 plus costs and attorneys' fees. Only those two issues, costs and attorneys' fees, are now before the court.
The matters to be considered in determining attorneys' fees in the normal case where the law allows such an award have been thoroughly considered in the jurisprudence. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 5 Cir. 1974, 488 F.2d 714; Clark v. American Marine Corp., E.D.La.1970, 320 F.Supp. 709, aff'd, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 959. Here, however, the defendant's argument presents a question previously unexplored: If the plaintiff's demands are unreasonable, may the plaintiff claim attorneys' fees for activities that might have been unnecessary had the plaintiff's settlement posture been more realistic?
It must be noted at the outset that, since the defendant refused to make any offer at all, we shall never know whether the case could have been settled at an earlier date. There was nothing obdurate about the defendant's conduct; as pointed out above, it is common practice for defendants to refuse to make an offer to a plaintiff whose demands are considered unreasonable. In the usual case, there may be sound practical and psychological reasons for such a bargaining strategy. But the question is who must pay the expense occasioned by this strategy when the case arises under a statute that embodies a basic national policy, like Title VII, and, to implement this policy, provides for attorneys' fees in the event of a successful claim. The defendant contends in effect that, if it chooses this strategy, it is relieved of the obligation to pay counsel's fees for services rendered by plaintiff's counsel in preparing the case for trial until such time as plaintiff's counsel makes a reasonable offer.
But there appears to be no reason why all the onus of failing to make a reasonable offer should rest on plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EEOC v. Nutri/System, Inc.
...nothing less than $100,000. 20 Prudent defendants will avail themselves of Rule 68, Fed.R.Civ.P. See Honea v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 394 F.Supp. 201 (E.D.La. 1975); but see Note, The Conflict Between Rule 68 & the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Statute: Reinterpreting the Rules Enab......
-
Scheriff v. Beck, Civ. A. No. 76-F-403.
...Club, 429 F.Supp. 661 (E.D.La.1976); Staffend v. Lake Central Airlines, 47 F.R.D. 218 (N.D.Ohio 1969); Honea v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 394 F.Supp. 201 (E.D.La.1975); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1471; 7 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ In this case Marshal Beck ......
-
Perkins v. New Orleans Athletic Club
...is entitled to only a part, or even a bit, of the relief prayed for, he might tender costs and fees to date. See Honea v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, E.D.La.1975, 394 F.Supp. 201. But the defendant may not put the whole burden of attorney's fees on the plaintiff by a goal line defense when a......
-
August v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
...that her position is supported by Perkins v. New Orleans Athletic Club, 429 F.Supp. 661 (E.D.La.1976), and Honea v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 394 F.Supp. 201 (E.D.La.1975), but that support is at best only For the considerations stated above, we believe that a liberal, not a technica......