Don Adams Update: Teamsters File Motion to Recover $62,673.46 in Fees and Costs

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania | September 18, 2003 | Thomas H. Kohn

[Physicist]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

DON ADAMS, ET AL.,      PLAINTIFFS      v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115, ET AL.,      DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-CV-4910

 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
ON BEHALF OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115

Defendant Teamsters Local Union No. 115, by and through its attorneys, Markowitz & Richman, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, hereby moves for an award of attorney's fees and costs, and states in support thereof as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Don and Theresa Adams initiated this civil action pursuant to the Civil Rights statutes of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2) and (3) and 1986.
2. Among the various defendants was Teamsters Local Union No. 115.
3. On January 24, 2001, the court entered on Order dismissing all but one of Plaintiffs' federal claims, retaining only their claim for violation of their freedom of speech.
4. On August 6, 2003, the court granted Local 115's motion for summary judgment as to that sole remaining federal claim.
5. At all times, Plaintiffs' federal claims were frivilous, unreasonable or without foundation.
6. As a prevailing defendant, Local 115 is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as part of its costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
7. Prior to completing its bill of costs and the instant motion, Local 115 had incurred $60,510 in attorney's fees in defense of Plaintiffs' civil rights causes of action, and its costs were $2,163.46.

WHEREFORE, Local 115 moves for an award of attorney's fees and costs.

Dated:9-18-03

Respectfully submitted,     (signed) THOMAS H. KOHN MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN 1100 North American Building 121 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA    19107 (215) 875-3129

[PatrickHenry]

I think there is a less-than-zero change of the teamsters getting those fees -- it would be against common sense and public policy to award legal fees unless the action was deemed frivolous.

Against common sense? Yes. But the statute says what it says. So don't be surprised if the judge awards fees.

[WL-law]

Here's some info on cases where fees were sought under that part of the USC.

Your post reinforces my point. in the case you cited the GOVERNMENT had to pay the plaintiff's legal fees -- the cited provision in the law is intended to remove the financial obstacle that would inhibit ordinary citizens from taking an action against the government or state-actors to enforce a civil rights violation.

It would be unheard of to use that against a PLAINTIFF, especially one who had a colorable case (and a remaining viable cause-of-action) like the case at hand.

[WL-law]

By the way, are there circumstances under which filing such a motion for fees is itself a frivolous action subject to sanctions?

Theoretically yes, but I think the court would view this as a pissing contest with both sides overreaching at times (i.e., some of the decisions by JW) and let each party pay its costs at this point.

[bvw]

Rendell is now governor.

[Reagan Renaissance]

Add Democrats and Unions to your list of despicable institutions.

[blackie]

Bump!

[Reagan Renaissance]

And for exercising your First Amendment right of free speech.

[Reagan Renaissance]

"I used to live down the street from one decent Union man. He hated the Union, but had to join and pay dues to work."

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

[Reagan Renaissance]

"It seems the courts are not always the best place to seek justice."

When the courts fail, sooner or later the streets will run red.

[em2vn]

"Most Union guys that I have known were bullies and creeps."
You must have known damn few union members.

[connectthedots]

One would think the circuit court of appeals would reverse the summary judgment on the civil rights claims since the Adams have a prima facia case for violations of their civil rights. The problem on the civil rights claim might be a bit of difficulty in establishing that the teamster thugs were acting under color of law or official authority.

The fact that Adams was arrested when he in fact was the person assaulted would support such a claim; assuming Judicial Watch preserved the claim within the statutory time limitation period. If they didn't, the Adams might have a claim for legal malpractice against JW.

[WL-law]

For the civil rights claim the plaintiff has to prove that a state actor violated his rights -- and, from what I can gather, since Adams could not provide any threshold evidence to support a conspiracy between the alleged state actor (Randell) and the thugs, you can't sustain a civil rights claim.

[Physicist]

For the civil rights claim the plaintiff has to prove that a state actor violated his rights -- and, from what I can gather, since Adams could not provide any threshold evidence to support a conspiracy between the alleged state actor (Randell) and the thugs, you can't sustain a civil rights claim.

Hold that thought. I will post evidence of such a conspiracy soon. Obviously it did not convince this judge, but it might be grounds for appeal.

I actually hoped to have it posted by now, but it's rather long and I haven't found the time to finish typing it in.

[connectthedots]

You are, of course, correct. Although rarely used, I think a 42 U.S.C. 1986 action would have been appropriate. Granted the case law regarding 1986 actions are anything but clear. I think the appellate courts have not really understood the real function of 1986 actions, especially when many appellate courts have ruled that for a section 1986 action to be maintained, there must also be a section 1985 violation. This makes no sense because if that was the intent, section 1986 severves no purpose. I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1871 intended to hold state actors responsible if they knew private citizens were conspiring to violate the civil rights of other private citizens and then did nothing to stop it or punish the offenders. In reading some of the legislative history regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1871, that seems to be the intent.

I think in the Adams case, it is pretty clear that the police knew and observed the teamster thugs assaulting Adams and intentionally refused to do anything about it. This being the case, the police were deliberately indifferent to the violation of the civil rights of the Adams and are therefore liable under 1983/1985 and the teamsters knowing that the police would ignore or condone their actions make the teamsters state actors for the purposes of 1983/1985.

Rendell's statement that the teamsters own the courts is evidence that the judge is biased against the Adams' and should be disqualified. There are some decisions that are so outrageous that any reasonable person must conclude that it was obtained through fraud. This appears to be one such case.

The fact that there was a criminal conviction at a minimum establishes a clear prima facia case for a tort claim for assault against the teamsters.

The Adams have a clear basis for an appeal of the dismissal of their case for several reasons. I certainly hope the adams appeal the dismissal of their case.

Like you, I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell that the Teamsters will prevail on the legal fees and costs motion. The cicuit court will slap such a ruling down so fast, it will make one's head spin. This is nothing more than an attempt at intimidation in the hope that the Adams won't appeal the dismissal of their case.

[connectthedots]

Hold that thought. I will post evidence of such a conspiracy soon. Obviously it did not convince this judge, but it might be grounds for appeal.

Even many federal judges attempt to cover-up corruption by state and local public officials. I know this all too well. Same goes for the FBI and many U.S. Attorneys.

I suspect the Circuit Court will reverse the motion for summary judgment and remand for trial.

[RJCogburn]

Also, just for the record, "A Navy Vet" was a major, and essential, force behind the March for Justice actually happening, IIRC.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Unions and their goons have been given a free pass by the courts of the land, from the very dawn of Uniondom. Always above the laws that the little people they were brutalizing into submission, were forced to live by.

Union organizers were the original terrorists, and remain so to this very day.Unreasonable Union demands upon industry has forced more businesses to shut down and/or flee the country, than high taxes and NAFTA put together.

There will be no more justice for Don and Teri Adams, than there will be for all the missing people in shallow graves around the country or those who became dog food and then dog doo doo, and finally stank up somebodies shoe. \

We are all equal under the law. Some are just far more equal.

[Physicist]

Aaaand also, for the record, I was the chief cigarette-butt picker-upper at the MFJ (more than 600 when I stopped counting). My fingers smelt of them for a long time, but darned if we didn't leave that place cleaner than we found it! :-)

[A Navy Vet]

What a fine butt-picker you were, er, picker-upper. Thanks for your help that day. I had forgotten. And the numbers do vary;my count was an approximate from the stage. May not be factoring in the turnover of people coming and going.

[A Navy Vet]

Just part of excellent team of 5.