![]() |
![]() |
ARMANDO MONTANO, et al, Plaintiffs, against LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ, et al, Defendants. No. 78 Civ. 17-CSH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Slip Opinion July 11, 1980 COUNSEL: JOHN C. KLOTZ, ESQ., 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019 For Plaintiffs DUBLIRER, HAYDON, STRACI & VICTOR, 67 Wall Street, New York, New York 10005 Theodore E. Teah, Esq. For Defendant Bronx County Democratic Committee OPINIONBY: HAIGHT OPINION: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER HAIGHT, District Judge: Plaintiffs, registered voters in the 21st Congressional District of New York City, commenced this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. @ 1983, and 28 U.S.C. @ 1343(3) and (4), to challenge procedures for nomination of candidates for a special congressional election. The named defendants included "the Democratic Committee of Bronx County by Joseph Galiber, its Chairman, and Agnes L. Jones, its Treasurer, Patrick J. Cunningham, Individually and as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Democratic Committee of Bronx County" (the "Bronx Democratic defendants"). Comparable officials of the Liberal, Conservative and Republican parties were named as defendants, but this Court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to attack their rules. They disappeared from the litigation. This Court held further that plaintiffs were not entitled to a temporary injunction against the Bronx Democratic defendants. Plaintiffs prosecuted a successful appeal, 575 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1978), and this Court entered an appropriate order. Plaintiffs, who were represented at all times by their attorney, John C. Klotz, Esq., now apply for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. @ 1988. n1 The application was originally put forward, and opposed, on the basis of affidavits. Mr. Klotz then gave oral testimony, and was cross-examined. n1 42 U.S.C. @ 1988 (1976) provides in pertinent part: "In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title,... the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." The Bronx Democratic defendants' papers in opposition raise two threshold issues. First, they contend that in September, 1978, subsequent to the commencement of the action, defendant "Democratic Committee of Bronx, an unincorporated association, ceased to exist as a result of a primary election and the institution of a new unincorporated association named the Bronx Democratic County Committee," whose membership is different from the prior committee. Affidavit of Theodore E. Teah, Esq., at PP6, 7. From that, it is said to follow that "[inasmuch] as the defendant association herein does not exist any longer, and no assets are in existence, any judgment entered herein would be moot." Id. at P. 9.Defendants further argue that service of the application has not been made upon the persons of the new committee specified in @ 13 of the New York General Associations Law, 18A McKinney's Consol. Laws of N.Y. (1979), n2 so that the Court lacks jurisdiction. Id. at P8. n2 The statute provides in pertinent part: "An action or special proceeding may be maintained, against the president or treasurer of such an association, to recover any property, or upon any cause of action, for or upon which the plaintiff may maintain such an action or special proceeding, against all the associates, by reason of their interest or ownership, or claim of ownership therein, either jointly or in common, or their liability therefor, either jointly or severally. Any partnership, or other company of persons, which has a president or treasurer, is deemed an association within the meaning of this section." Plaintiffs respond to the first contention by citing Rule 25(d), F.R.Civ.P., which provides: "(1) When a public officer is a party to an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and his successor is automatically substituted as a party. Proceedings following the substitution shall be in the name of the substituted party, but any misnomer not affecting the substantial rights of the parties shall be disregarded. An order of substitution may be entered at any time, but the omission to enter such an order shall not affect the substitution. "(2) When a public officer sues or is sued in his official capacity, he may be described as a party by his official title rather than by name; but the court may require his name to be added." Members of political party committees who, by virtue of their offices, administrate a state's primary election machinery "are election officers of the state de facto if not de jure," Rice v. Elmore, 165 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1941). The Second Circuit recognized in the case at bar that New York's delegation to the political parties of the nominating process for special elections "renders the party selection process state action." 575 F.2d at 383. Thus the individuals acting in their capacity as officers of the Bronx Democratic County Committee during the pendency of this litigation must be viewed as "public officers" under Rule 25(d), cf. Sturdevant v. Deer, 73 F.R.D. 375 (E.D.Mich. 1976), see 3B Moore's Federal Practice (2nd ed. 1980) at P25.09[3], p. 25-107 n.5 and cases cited, and their successors are "automatically substituted" as parties. Plaintiffs have moved this Court for an order pursuant to Rule 25(d) substituting Stanley M. Friedman as Chairman of the Bronx Democratic Committee and its Executive Committee, and Harry Mintzer as treasurer of the Bronx Democratic Committee. These are the individuals who, according to Klotz's research, have succeeded to those positions. Defendants have filed no opposition papers to the Rule 25(d) motion. Ordinarily that would justify its granting by default, General Rule 9(b) of this Court. However, Rule 25(d) while providing for the automatic substitution, as a party, of the successor to a "public officer," appears to assume the uninterrupted existence of the agency or other entity which those officers serve. In consequence, it does not fully meet defendants' contention that, by operation of state law, the then-existing committees no longer exist. The cases cited for that proposition are Licitra v. Power, 10 A.D.2d 996, 203 N.Y.S.2d 322 (2d Dept. 1960), aff'd, 8 N.Y.2d 871, and Duryea v. McNab, 232 N.Y.S.2d 462 (Sup.Ct. Suffolk Cty. 1962), aff'd, 17 A.D.2d 713, 232 N.Y.S.2d 600 (2d Dept.). Both cases deal with the power of committees to designate particular individuals as candidates for office. Neither case addresses the question presented here, namely, "whether the institution of a new unincorporated association named the Bronx Democratic County Committee" (Teah affidavit at P6) brought about so basic a change in structure that the present committee bears no liability for a claim for attorneys' fees properly accruing against its predecessor committee, as the result of the efforts of counsel for plaintiffs in vindicating important civil rights. In the absence of authority compelling that result, I decline to relieve the Bronx County Democratic Committee of that liability. The Klotz affidavit of March 28, 1980, seemingly based upon painstaking research, indicates that substantial overlap of membership exists between the former county and executive committees and the present bodies; and that the present Bronx Democratic County Committee assumed the assets of the prior county committee. Klotz affidavit at PP7-12. The committee's offices remain at the same location; and Klotz asserts, to the best of his own knowledge (not inconsiderable in political affairs) that "when the terms of the county committee expires [sic] every two years, the consistent practice has been for the successor committee to assume control of the books, records, office furniture, offices, etc. of the prior county committee." Id. at P13. None of these assertions is challenged by defendants. Accordingly I accept the contention in the Klotz affidavit that the present county committee "functions as a successor body, not as an independent entity newborn on September 12, 1978." Id. at P12. The same rationale applie to the Executive Committee. Defendants having failed to dispute these factual assertions, or to cite authority precluding the continuing liability of the committees for these charges, I reject the contention that the presently-existing committees are free of any liability by operation of law. Defendants' contention that the Court lacks jurisdiction because of insufficiency of personal service is of no substance. Defendants' counsel have represented the defendants at all stages of the proceedings, both before and after the date upon which it is now said that the prior committees ceased to exist. Plaintiffs made service of the application for attorneys' fees upon counsel who had represented the defendants throughout, pursuant to Rule 5(b), F.R.Civ.P., and defendants are now estopped from denying the authority of the attorneys who have represented them. I come, then, to the merits of plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs. While there is authority for the proposition that such applications can be adjudicated solely on the basis of affidavits, without evidentiary hearing, Population Services International v. Carey, 476 F.Supp. 4, 9 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), a hearing was directed in the instant case, so that defendants' counsel could cross-examine Mr. Klotz with respect to the assertions contained in the latter's affidavit. It is fair to say that while defendants offered some objections to Klotz's hourly rate and the amount of time assertedly devoted to the case, the objections were neither asserted nor pressed with any vigor. Defendants also argued that the individual plaintiffs were elected public officials, "with salaries in excess of $20,000 per year and both are well able to provide the remainder of the retainer agreement funds." The short answer to this contention is that plaintiffs' attorneys in a successful civil rights action are not limited to their fee arrangements with their clients. Zarcone v. Perry, 581 F.2d 1039, 1044 (2d Cir. 1978); Population Services International v. Carey, supra, at 7. Klotz's original affidavit on this motion recited, in detailed fashion, the expenditure of 172 hours on the case, from the initial consultations with his clients, through the proceedings in this Court, the Court of Appeals, and again in this Court, and in preparation and presentation of the claim for attorneys' fees. That last element is, of course, compensable under @ 1988. Mid-Hudson Legal Services v. G. & U., Inc., 465 F.Supp. 261, 269-70 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). Klotz seeks a "lodestar" figure of $150 per hour. See Population Services International v. Carey, supra, at 9, and cases there cited. At the hearing, Klotz testified to the expenditures of an additional 8 hours, in final preparation and presentation of his proof. Since that hearing, Klotz states in a supplemental affidavit, he has devoted an additional 15 hours in researching and addressing the questions raised by defendants in opposition to the application. In consequence, the present application is for compensation at the rate of $150 per hour for 195 hours' work, yielding a "lodestar" figure of $29,250, to be increased to $43,875 by the addition of a 50% incentive or premium figure of $14.625. n3 See City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 560 F.2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir. 1977); Population Services International v. Carey, supra, at 11-12; but see Beazer v. New York City Transit Authority, 558 F.2d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. granted on other issues, 440 U.S. 568 (1978) (lodestar of $310,000 approved but incentive award disapproved, where "the legal issues were relatively simple and few," and the benefits of the suit to the plaintiff class "are not altogether concrete"). n3 The Klotz affidavit calculated that 195 hours times $150 per hour totalled $28,500. The computation was in error. Based upon my own familiarity with the case, I conclude that 195 hours is a reasonable amount of time for Mr. Klotz to have devoted to the litigation in its several stages; and that $150 per hour is a reasonable rate of compensation for an attorney of his age, experience and skill in this area of the law. On that point, his application is supported by the affidavit of another attorney, not affiliated with Klotz in practice, who is qualified to express an opinion on the subject. Mr. Klotz is a specialist in the law of election procedures as is illustrated by his retention, according to his testimony at the hearing, by the forces of Senator Kennedy in a challenge to petitions lodged by California's Governor Brown in connection with the recent New York presidential primary election. While a $150 hourly rate verges toward the higher end of the scale for attorneys' compensation in these cases, see Population Services International v. Carey, supra, at 10 and cases there collected, there is authority for such a rate, particularly in the case of a single practitioner. Quirke v. Chessie Corp., 368 F.Supp. 558, 563 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). While Klotz has not submitted detailed time sheets, and these are of course preferable when available, his explanation for not keeping such sheets is plausible,l given the nature of his practice among clients of limited economic circumstances. Affidavit of January 8, 1980 at P9. (Senator Kennedy would appear to fall into a different category.) In sum, I allow the requested lodestar figure, in the amount of $29,250 (195 hours at an hourly rate of $150). I further conclude that some additional, incentive award is justified. The constitutional question was an important one, and the success achieved by plaintiffs in the Court of Appeals, while not of immediate benefit to the candidates in question (the special election having been held by the time the case reached the Court of Appeals), nonetheless stands as an important precedent for future electoral procedures. However, it is also fair to observe that Judge Friendly's opinion in the Court of Appeals rejected a number of plaintiffs' arguments. The case stressed by plaintiffs, appellants in the Court of Appeals, "is not so determinative in appellant's favor as they claim." 575 F.2d at 383. The Court of Appeals also found "relatively little enlightenment in decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by appellants," ibid, and "scant help in decisions of other courts of appeals which were cited," id at 384. "Appellants' case when properly analyzed," wrote Judge Friendly, "rests not only on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but also upon the clauses of the Constitution with respect to the election of the House of Representatives and action of Congress pursuant thereto." Ibid. Judge Friendly thereupon embarked upon a constitutional analysis which was not put forward by plaintiffs, either in this Court or in the Court of Appeals. I conclude, therefore, that a significant measure of any incentive award for innovative legal research should go to Judge Friendly, although of course he is not in a position to receive it. I am also mindful of the Court of Appeals' admonition in Beazer, supra, that attorneys' fee requests must be scrutinized with "'an eye to moderation', seeking to avoid either the reality or the appearance of awarding 'windfall fees.'" 558 F.2d at 101. My conclusion is that plaintiffs' attorney is entitled to a 25% incentive award, in the amount of $7,312.50, which results in a total award of $36,562.50. No claim is made for out-of-pocket expenses. Out of the award of $36,562.50, plaintiffs are directed to compensate Professor Michael Lanzarone, who, according to Klotz's supplementary affidavit, spent 4 hours conferring with Klotz with respect to the most recent activities in the case. I intimate no view as to what Professor Lanzarone's compensation should be. I simply hold that it does not give rise to a separate claim for compensation; and that his ultimate compensation is to be determined to the mutual satisfaction of plaintiffs, Klotz and Lanzarone, and funded out of the award decreed herewith. CONCLUSION In these circumstances, plaintiffs' motion under Rule 25(d), F.R.Civ.P., is granted. Plaintiffs are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $36,562.50 against the defendant committees. n4 n4 If judgment against the defendant committees is returned wholly or partly unsatisfied or unexecuted, then and only then would a subsequent action lie against the individual members. N.Y. General Associations Law, @ 16. Plaintiffs and their counsel are directed to settle an appropriate order and judgment on five (5) days' notice to counsel who have represented defendants in this litigation.
![]() |
![]() |