Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TROUT v. GARRETT

July 9, 1990

YVONNE G. TROUT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
H. LAWRENCE GARRETT, III, et al., Defendants


Harold H. Greene, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: GREENE

HAROLD H. GREENE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Plaintiffs request entry of an order allowing an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs for the thirty-five individual relief proceedings found necessary by the Special Master. The government, as is its inevitable practice in this case, opposes the request.

 Plaintiffs have prevailed on the merits of their class action claim. Nevertheless, the government has insisted that they prove the facts of discrimination once again with respect to each of the members of the class. The Special Master has denied the motions for summary judgment filed by the government with respect to the thirty-five individuals whose claims are at issue here, and it is clear that, as concerns these particular claims, they are not vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.

 It is likewise clear that since the plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this litigation, they are also entitled to attorney's fees with respect to the non-frivolous individual relief hearings as well as with respect to the principal lawsuit itself. *fn1" This Court has so held again and again, and other courts have likewise come to the same conclusion in similar procedural circumstances. See, e.g., McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 427 (D.D.C. 1986); Palmer v. Schultz, C.A. No. 76-1439 and 77-2006, Remedial Order at 25 (D.D.C. January 31, 1989); Berger v. Iron Workers Reinforced Rodmen, Local 201, C.A. No. 75-1743, Order of Reference to Special Master at 7 (D.D.C. February 15, 1989); see also, Turner v. Orr, 785 F.2d 1498, 1502-03 (11th Cir. 1986). The government's sole response to these precedents *fn2" -- that all these courts failed to provide an adequate legal analysis -- is neither impressive nor persuasive, particularly since the government has made it a practice in this case to refuse to follow precedent by this and other courts on similarly specious grounds.

 The government also states once again that the request for attorney's fees is premature. That argument, too, has been made to this Court and to the Court of Appeals at other stages of these proceedings, but consistently without success. The Court hereby rejects the argument once again.

 For the reasons stated, it is this 9th day of July, 1990

 ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorney's fees and costs for the thirty-five individual relief proceedings before the Special ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.