Utica Cmty. Sch. v. Alef, Case No. 13-14022

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Decision Date: 09 February 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 13-14022
• Citation: Utica Cmty. Sch. v. Alef, Case No. 13-14022 (E.D. Mich. Feb 09, 2017)
• Parties: UTICA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Plaintiff, v. RICHARD J. ALEF, Defendant.

UTICA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Plaintiff, v. RICHARD J. ALEF, Defendant.

Case No. 13-14022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

February 9, 2017

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

This court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why its complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of the long delay since any progress at all has been made in this case. (Dkt. #15.) The order also mentioned that Defendant, who serves as counsel in a separate case against Plaintiff, Somberg v. Utica Community Schools, No. 13-11810, has succeeded on the merits in that case, which seems to moot the instant matter. (Dkt. #15.) Plaintiff filed a timely response, (Dkt. #16), and Defendant also filed a reply, (Dkt. #17).

Plaintiff claims that Defendant, despite being successful in the underlying case, should have to pay fees which Plaintiff incurred for having to respond to "frivolous and unreasonable claims," which Defendant made during the administrative proceeding in the underlying case, but which did not support recovery by his client. In particular Plaintiff points to an allegation of a "phantom IEP meeting" having been "cut from whole cloth." (Dkt. #16, Pg. ID 400.) Plaintiff relies in part on the Supreme Court's decision in Fox v. Vice, which held that, in instances where a plaintiff has succeeded on some claims and made other frivolous claims, the operative statute "permits defendant to receive only the portion of his fees that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim." 563 U.S. 826, 836 (2011) ("We emphasize, as we have before, that the determination of fees 'should not result in a second major litigation.'") (citation omitted). The court went on to explain that "the dispositive question is not whether attorney costs at all relate to a non-frivolous claim, but whether the costs would have been incurred in the absence of the frivolous allegation." Id. at 838. Here, Plaintiff asserts that some of the allegedly frivolous claims were substantially the subject of an administrative hearing and were stricken by the administrative law judge. (Dkt. #16-1.)

In reply Defendant argues that the ALJ opinion reflects that his clients were truly successful in their underlying case against Plaintiff on two counts and that the transcripts of the hearing evidence that Plaintiff actually admitted to violations as to the other two counts as well. Defendant also argues that Count I of the complaint alleging false statements in the amended administrative complaint merely parrots a counterclaim which was rejected by this court in the other case. Finally, it argues that Count II of the complaint, alleging that the amended administrative complaint contained allegations legally insufficient or beyond the jurisdictional scope of the proceedings, lacks merit because Plaintiff merely asserted general denials at the administrative hearing to these allegations and it was Plaintiff's own actions which necessitated the amendments to its answer.

Plaintiff is generally correct about determining the prevailing party on a piecemeal basis. The Supreme Court held that "a plaintiff may present in one lawsuit distinctly different claims for relief that are based on different facts and legal theories."Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-35 (1983). In such cases, "counsel's work on one claim will be unrelated to his work on another claim[, such that] work on an unsuccessful claim cannot be deemed to have been expended in pursuit of the ultimate result achieved." Id. The instant case does not appear to match that description at all, as time spent at the administrative hearing was not...