Mendoza v. City of Miami, 73-1672 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 06 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1672 Summary Calendar.,73-1672 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 483 F.2d 430 |
| Parties | Maria F. G. MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI and David Kennedy, as chief legislative officer of the City of Miami, et al., etc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Alan H. Rothstein, City Atty., S. R. Sterbenz, Asst. City Atty., Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellants-cross-appellees.
Luis P. Salas, Miami, Fla., Russell E. Carlisle, Kenneth F. Tworoger, Fort Lauderdale, for plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant.
Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
These are cross-appeals from a summary judgment entered against the Mayor, the City Manager, and the Chairman of the Civil Service Board of the City of Miami, Florida, in a suit brought by the appellee, an alien, concerning discrimination against aliens in the City's employment practices. We affirm.
1. The Court correctly held the civil service rule excluding aliens from employment to be unconstitutional. Sugarman v. Douglass, 413 U.S. 634, 93 S.Ct. 2842, 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973). The unconstitutionality of excluding aliens being the only issue in the case, the District Court's order striking Rule V, Section 3 of the City of Miami Civil Service Rules and Regulations must be construed to affect only the clause pertaining to citizenship.
2. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in finding that $2,800 was sufficient compensation to be awarded the cross-appellants' attorneys, which amount was supported by the affidavits introduced into evidence.
3. The City of Miami and the City of Miami Civil Service Board were properly dismissed from the suit due to improper service of process: wives are not authorized to receive service for the respective chief executive officers in their official capacities. F.R.Civ.P. 4(d) (6); F.S.A. §§ 48.111 and 120.071.
4. The cause is remanded to the District Court for consideration of an award of attorney's fees for the prosecution of this appeal.
Affirmed and remanded for consideration of attorney's fees.
* Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery, 87-7763
...award attorney's fees based solely on affidavits in the record. Mesa Petroleum Company, 629 F.2d at 1030; Accord, Mendoza v. City of Miami, 483 F.2d 430, 431 (5th Cir.1973). Occasionally, evidentiary hearings are necessary. In King v. McCord, 621 F.2d 205 (5th Cir.1980) (King v. McCord I ),......
-
Amen v. City of Dearborn
...Dep't of City Development, 377 F.Supp. 497, 499 (E.D.Wis.1974) (service on department commissioner sufficient) with Mendoza v. City of Miami, 483 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1973) (service on wives of chief executive officers insufficient) and United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 367 ......
-
Mesa Petroleum Co. v. Coniglio
...determining reasonable attorneys fees. We perceive no error in the use of affidavits for such a purpose. See, e. g., Mendoza v. City of Miami, 483 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1973). Indeed, a district judge may fix attorneys fees on the basis of his own experience without the assistance of any testi......