10-15-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Court of Minnesota relied on the district court opinion in the above -cited Zarcone v. Perry, 438 F. Supp. 788 (E.D.N.Y. 1977), in support of his conclusion that a plaintiff must advance a public interest to be entitled to his attorney's fees: Chief Judge Mishler (of the Eastern District of New York], in a perceptive opinion, denied attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiff, reasoning that "it is only when plaintiffs advance the public interest by bringing .he action that an award of attorneys' fees is proper." (Citation omitted.) The rationale of Zarcone is sound_ and should be applied in this case. Martin, 466 F. Supp. at 456 (emphasis addeCl . However, at the time Judge Devitt rendered his decision in Martin, the Second Circuit had already reviewed the district court's decision in Zarcone and spec_fically rejected Chief Judge Mishler's conclusion tl)at the private nature of a civil rights claim precludes the award of fees. Zarcone v. Perry, 581 F.2d at 1042. In a subsequent decision, the Second Circuit further clarified its view regariing this public, versus private, benefit issue: The "private" nature of Zarcone's claim was not the principal basis for our decision there; indeed, although we affirmed the lower court's denial of a fee, we specifically rejected i_s conclusion that "to be eligible fo,, shifting of attorneys' fees, the civil rig'Ats pla ,if is obligated to show that his action resulted in direct benefits to others, rather than in benefits solely to himself." Milwe v. Cavuoto, 653 F. 2d 80, 83 (2d Cir. 1981). Accord, Wheatley v Ford, 679 F.2d 1037, 1040 (2d Cir. 1982). Thus, Judge Devitt's opinion in Martin drew its only support from a district court decision which had already been rejected on appeal an,1 further disclaimed by the Second Circui' in a subsequent .-_ 6 ._