Hughes v. Lipscher

• Decision Date: 16 May 1994
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 89-492.
• Citation: 852 F. Supp. 293
• Parties: Marie Williams HUGHES and Joseph P. Hughes, v. Robert D. LIPSCHER, Conrad J. Roncati, Stephen W. Townsend.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

852 F. Supp. 293

Marie Williams HUGHES and Joseph P. Hughes, v. Robert D. LIPSCHER, Conrad J. Roncati, Stephen W. Townsend.

Civ. A. No. 89-492.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

May 16, 1994.

Marsha Wenk, American Civ. Liberties Union of NJ, Newark, NJ, for plaintiffs.

Michael L. Diller, Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen., Deborah T. Poritz, Atty. Gen. of NJ, Trenton, NJ, for defendants.

OPINION

POLITAN, District Judge.

This matter is presently before the Court on the application of plaintiffs for attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. I heard oral argument in this matter on March 7, 1994 and reserved decision. The instant application calls for a resolution to the questions of (1) whether the named defendants were insulated against an award of attorneys' fees via the doctrine of legislative immunity, (2) whether the plaintiffs satisfied the prevailing party prerequisite required by § 1988 and, if so, (3) whether their claimed attorneys' fees were in fact reasonable. I address each issue in seriatim. For the reasons expressed herein, plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees is hereby GRANTED in part.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts giving rise to this case have been set forth in full in a prior decision of this Court and hence need not be exhaustively restated. See Hughes v. Lipscher, 720 F.Supp. 454 (D.N.J.1989), vacated and remanded, 906 F.2d 961 (3rd Cir.1990). Presently it is sufficient to note that in 1988 Marie Williams, the municipal court clerk in the Borough of North Arlington, married Joseph Hughes, a detective with the North Arlington Police Department. The marriage seemingly ran afoul of a New Jersey Supreme Court directive (Bulletin Letter No. 5/6-77 — "Spouse, Parent or Child of Law Enforcement Officer Serving as Court Clerk or Deputy Court Clerk"), issued through the Administrative Office of the Courts ("AOC"), which provided that "after August 1, 1977 no court clerk or deputy court clerk of a municipal court may be appointed or designated if that person has a spouse, parent or child who is or becomes a police officer serving on the police force in that municipality." Upon being informed by Dr. Conrad J. Roncati, the Trial Court Administrator of Bergen County, that the Bulletin Letter was indeed applicable to the Hughes's employment/marital situation, and that "pending resolution of this matter Mrs. Hughes is to be recused from any matter involving the spouse in Municipal Court," the Hughes filed a Complaint in federal court seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent enforcement of the Bulletin Letter.

Defendants responded to plaintiffs' request for an injunction by filing a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, for summary judgment. I denied defendants' motions and decided the constitutional issues before me by concluding that the Bulletin Letter violated plaintiffs' fundamental equal protection and substantive due process rights. Hughes, 720 F.Supp. at 462. In so holding, I permanently enjoined defendants from enforcing the offending Bulletin Letter against plaintiffs or any other similarly situated municipal employees. Id.

Following my decision, plaintiffs filed a motion for fees and costs together with supporting affidavits seeking fees through October 19, 1989 in the amount of $48,400.00 and costs in the amount of $3,668.11. Plaintiffs specifically reserved "the right to seek additional reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs, should additional litigation of this case, including litigation of the issue of attorneys' fees and costs, be necessary." Certification of Lisa Agresti Carey, ¶ 4.

Defendants opposed both the fee application and further appealed the underlying substantive decision to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.¹ On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the Opinion and Order of this Court and, applying Pullman abstention, remanded the case with instructions to abstain pending an authoritative decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, as that court's resolution of issues of state law could "moot or change the analysis of the federal constitutional issue." 906 F.2d 961, 964 (3rd Cir. 1990). This Court retained jurisdiction.

On January 1, 1992, prior to the filing of any pleadings in the New Jersey state courts, Robert Lipscher, the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, issued Directive No. 1-92 regarding the New Jersey Supreme Court's policy pertaining to municipal court administrators and deputy administrators who are spouses, parents or offspring of police officers in that municipality.² The new Directive was promulgated to withdraw specifically that portion of Bulletin Letter No. 5/6-77 which prohibited marriage between a court clerk and a police officer employed in the same municipality. See Directive No. 1-92, Jan. 1, 1992. Under the terms of Directive No. 1-92, a court administrator who, after his or her appointment marries or cohabits with a police officer, or an administrator whose spouse, child or parent subsequently becomes a police officer, is no longer barred from continued employment as a municipal court administrator or deputy administrator, but is simply disqualified from participating in matters in which that related officer has been involved in some way. Directive No. 1-92 at 2. The Directive itself indicates that its present provisions replace the dictates of the 1977 Bulletin Letter, and notes further that the 1977 policy "should not be interpreted as barring an administrator, after appointment, from such a marriage to a police officer since the personal consequences of such a prohibition may be excessively severe." Id. at 3.

On August 23, 1993 the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted Canon 7 of the Code of Conduct for Judiciary Employees, which had been proposed by the Supreme Court Committee on Professional and Outside Activities of Judiciary Personnel. Canon 7 reads, in pertinent part:

D. Persons shall not be appointed as court employees when their relatives are employees of a law-enforcement agency within the same unit of government and when that appointment creates an appearance that the law-enforcement agency may have an improper influence over court matters. Nothing contained herein shall diminish the restrictions imposed by the various court directives following the decision in Hughes v. Lipscher, 720 F.Supp. 454 (D.N.J.1989), vacated 906 F.2d 961 (3rd Cir.1990), which shall remain in full force and effect.

Comment: Employees are referred to Directive # 1-92, "Supreme Court Policy Governing Municipal Court Administrators and Deputy Administrators Who Are Married to or Are the Parents or Children of Police Officers," and any subsequent Directives on this or related topics.

Code of Conduct for Judiciary Employees, Canon 7.D (codified at N.J.Ct.R. 1:17A (West 1994)).

It is the contention of plaintiffs, through their attorneys the American Civil Liberties Union — New Jersey ("ACLU-NJ"), that the Supreme Court's adoption of Part D of Canon 7, which incorporates the limitations of Directive No. 1-92, is an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court resolving plaintiffs' cause of action in their favor. Accordingly, plaintiffs, cloaking themselves in the robes of a prevailing party, currently seek attorneys' fees in the amounts set forth in previous affidavits, and further seek fees for the time incurred on defendants' appeal as well as fees and costs incurred in the continued litigation of the instant motion for fees and costs.³

II. LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY OF DEFENDANTS

Before reaching the issue of whether plaintiffs satisfy the eligibility requirements for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, it is necessary as a threshold matter to address defendants' claim of insulation from liability on the grounds of legislative immunity. The defendants argue that attorneys' fees and costs may not be awarded since the defendants in this case stand merely as ministerial conduits through which the New Jersey Supreme Court acted legislatively both in promulgating its original 1977 policy prohibiting marriage and/or cohabitation between municipal court clerks and police officers and in modifying it via the 1992 directive. Defendants presently seek to shield themselves from any fee liability by grafting upon themselves the legislative immunity which they maintain is accorded the New Jersey Supreme Court in the instant case.

Members of legislative bodies, whether national, state, or local, enjoy absolute immunity from suit based on their actions undertaken as part of the legislative process. See Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, 446 U.S. 719, 732-33, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 1974-75, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980). Individuals who are not legislators but whose acts have a substantial legislative nexus are also imbued with this absolute legislative immunity. See generally Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975).⁴ A legislative act involves "`the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation and promulgation as a defined and binding rule of conduct.'" Cinevision Corp. v. City of Burbank, 745 F.2d 560, 580 (9th Cir.1984) (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 424, 64 S.Ct. 660, 667, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944)), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054, 105 S.Ct. 2115, 85 L.Ed.2d 480 (1985). A judge or judicial body may have absolute legislative, as distinguished from judicial, immunity for actions which are in line with the legislative process (e.g., actions involving the promulgation of binding rules of conduct). Consumers Union, 446 U.S. at 731-33, 100 S.Ct. at 1974-75.

To buttress their defense of legislative immunity defendants rely almost exclusively upon Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. In Consumers Union, the plaintiffs brought a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Virginia Supreme...