Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Owen S. Knight v. Rocco Auciello, 453 F.2d 852, 1st Cir. (1972)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court is considering whether the district court erred in not awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees in addition to damages in a racial housing discrimination case. The plaintiffs proved their case of unlawful discrimination but had already found another apartment, so did not seek injunctive relief. The district court awarded $500 in damages but no counsel fees. The appeals court finds that denying counsel fees could allow wrongdoers to discriminate, knowing plaintiffs may not pursue litigation due to costs. Awarding counsel fees helps enforce important public policies against discrimination. The court remands to the district court to determine appropriate counsel fees.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Owen S. Knight v. Rocco Auciello, 453 F.2d 852, 1st Cir. (1972)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views2 pages
    The court is considering whether the district court erred in not awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees in addition to damages in a racial housing discrimination case. The plaintiffs proved their case of unlawful discrimination but had already found another apartment, so did not seek injunctive relief. The district court awarded $500 in damages but no counsel fees. The appeals court finds that denying counsel fees could allow wrongdoers to discriminate, knowing plaintiffs may not pursue litigation due to costs. Awarding counsel fees helps enforce important public policies against discrimination. The court remands to the district court to determine appropriate counsel fees.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1972-01-17 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 453 F.2d 852 Docket: 71-1108

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court is considering whether the district court erred in not awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees in addition to damages in a racial housing discrimination case. The plaintiffs proved their case of unlawful discrimination but had already found another apartment, so did not seek injunctive relief. The district court awarded $500 in damages but no counsel fees. The appeals court finds that denying counsel fees could allow wrongdoers to discriminate, knowing plaintiffs may not pursue litigation due to costs. Awarding counsel fees helps enforce important public policies against discrimination. The court remands to the district court to determine appropriate counsel fees.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    18 views2 pages

    Owen S. Knight v. Rocco Auciello, 453 F.2d 852, 1st Cir. (1972)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court is considering whether the district court erred in not awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees in addition to damages in a racial housing discrimination case. The plaintiffs proved their case of unlawful discrimination but had already found another apartment, so did not seek injunctive relief. The district court awarded $500 in damages but no counsel fees. The appeals court finds that denying counsel fees could allow wrongdoers to discriminate, knowing plaintiffs may not pursue litigation due to costs. Awarding counsel fees helps enforce important public policies against discrimination. The court remands to the district court to determine appropriate counsel fees.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    453 F.

    2d 852

    Owen S. KNIGHT et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants,


    v.
    Rocco AUCIELLO et al., Defendants, Appellees.
    No. 71-1108.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    First Circuit.
    Heard Jan. 3, 1972.
    Decided Jan. 17, 1972.

    Michael Davidson, New York City, with whom Jack Greenberg, Sylvia
    Drew, New York City, and Gerald L. Nissenbaum, Somerville, Mass.,
    were on brief, for appellants.
    Appellees submitted on the original record.
    Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE, Circuit Judge, and
    WYZANSKI, Senior District Judge.*
    PER CURIAM.

    The single question in this case is whether the district court erred in not
    awarding plaintiffs counsel fees, in addition to damages, for unlawful racial
    discrimination by using a knowingly false pretext in refusing to lease an
    apartment. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1982. By the time the case had reached trial and
    plaintiffs had proved their case they already had found another, satisfactory
    apartment, and hence disclaimed injunctive relief. The court awarded $500 by
    way of general damages, but refused to tax counsel fees as costs.
    Plaintiffsappeal.

    Possibly broad questions of policy could be presented in a case of this


    character-whether, for example, color discrimination with relation to housing,
    section 1982, is to be treated differently from violations of the more general
    sections 1981 and 1983, and how broad an interpretation is to be given to
    section 1988. There also may be questions of whether a suit is being prosecuted
    for the benefit of the individual plaintiff, or whether it may be thought that

    particular counsel are more concerned with a court decision than with their
    specific client. Cf. Springfield School Committee v. Barksdale, 1 Cir., 1965,
    348 F.2d 261, 265. We will not deal with these questions, beyond making the
    following observations.
    3

    The violation of an important public policy may involve little by way of actual
    damages, so far as a single individual is concerned, or little in comparison with
    the cost of vindication, as the case at bar illustrates. If a defendant may feel that
    the cost of litigation, and, particularly, that the financial circumstances of an
    injured party may mean that the chances of suit being brought, or continued in
    the face of opposition, will be small, there will be little brake upon deliberate
    wrongdoing. In such instances public policy may suggest an award of costs that
    will remove the burden from the shoulders of the plaintiff seeking to vindicate
    the public right. We regard this as such a case.1 See, in general, Newman v.
    Piggie Park Enterprises, 1968, 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263;
    Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 5 Cir., 1971, 444 F.2d 143, 147. The
    judgment denying counsel fees is reversed.

    As to the amount of the fee, it might be thought appropriate to compare with


    the schedule set in the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A(d), without
    the maximum limitation, but we leave such matters to the district court. Costs
    in this court will be taxed to include appellants' counsel's fees. Counsel may
    submit statement. Remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

    Sitting by designation

    With this compare cases like Caperci v. Huntoon, 1 Cir., 1968, 397 F.2d 799,
    cert. denied 393 U.S. 940, 89 S.Ct. 299, 21 L.Ed.2d 276, where substantial
    damages were awarded, and where defendants were not shown to be engaged in
    a general course of improper conduct, as we would infer in the case at bar.
    Possibly until the law becomes fully settled in this area, district courts might be
    advised to make findings of fact in all civil rights cases as to the desirability of
    counsel fees

    You might also like