10-15-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Notinq that the trial court referred in passing to the private nature of Mr. Welsh's action, this Court cited the following cases to support the conclusion that the failure to advance a broad public interest 'constitutes sufficient special circumstances to deny an award of Section 1988 fees": Martin V. Hancock, 466 F. Supp. 454 (D. Minn. 1979); Green V. Carbaugh, 460 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Va. 1978); Naprstek v. City of Norwich, 433 F. Supp. 1369 (N.D. N.Y. 1977); Boland v. City of Rapid City, 315 N.W.2d 496 (S.D. 1982)• Welsh Opinion at 11. This conclusion flies in the face of prevailing case law. Moreover, Martin is no longer good law, Naprstek and Green do not stand for the proposition asserted by this Court, and Boland is inapposite to the case at bar. A. Controlling Case Law Contradicts this Court's Conclusion that the Essentially Private Nature of an Action Justifies the Denial of Section 1980 Fees to a Prevailing Plaintiff. It is now well established throughout the federal circuits that 'a request for attorney's fees should not be denied merely because the action provided a private benefit to the plaintiff rather than a public benefit to a class of similarly situated ,..-sons." Wheatley v. Ford, 679 F.2d 1037, 1040 (2d Cir. 1982' In Busche v. Burkee, 649 F.2d 509 (7th Cir.), cart. denied, 45. U.S. 897 (1981), defendant argued that attor--+'s fees should be awarded only to those parties who bring a s in the capacity of private attorneys general to enforce the civil right• statutes on behalf of a class. Defendant sought to limit the application of 42 U.S.C. 51980 to � actions which seek equit- -3-