Laserfiche WebLink
In Naprstek, the district court denied the award of <br />attorney's fees because it found that the lawsuit was frivolous, <br />unduly contentious and thoroughly unnecessary, however successful <br />it had been. <br />Nor do we think Congress intanded to award <br />attorneys for burdening federal courts with <br />unnecessary litigation when they have not even <br />attempted to remed; their clients' grievances by <br />talking out their differences with duly constituted <br />executive and legislative Authorities at the local <br />level. <br />433 F.Supp. at 1371. In the instant case, the record before the <br />trial court and this Court amply reflects the substantiality of <br />this lawsuit and Mr. Welsh's efforts to resolve his differences <br />with the City of Oronq short of litigation. There is not the <br />slightest suggestion of the misbehavior and frivolity on which <br />the court in Naprstek relied in denying attorney's fees. <br />.n Green v. Carbaugh, like Naprstek, the district court <br />denied a fee petition because of its displeasure with the <br />plaintiff for having instituted suit. See Green, 460 F. Supp. at <br />1194. Mr. Welsh has discovered only one case which has relied on <br />Green. In Young v. Kenley, 465 F. Supp. 1260 (E.D. Va. 1979), the <br />court cited Green for the proposition that Congress did not <br />intend that attorney's fees be awarded under Section 1988 in "an <br />action which need never have been filed." Young v. Kenley, 465 <br />F. Supp. at 1264. <br />Thus, the cases cited by this Court simply do not support the <br />ce-ntention that a plaintiff suing for injunctive re'.ief must <br />advance a broad public interest if he is to b- awsrded his <br />-9- <br />