Jones v. Hayman
13 A.3d 416
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Four female inmates from EMCF sued the NJDOC alleging discriminatory and unconstitutional conditions when transferred to NJSP, asserting claims under Article I, Para. 1 of the NJ Constitution, LAD, and CRA.
- Plaintiffs secured class certification and a preliminary injunction preventing further transfers to NJSP, but all women were later returned to EMCF, and the action was dismissed as moot.
- Plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees under N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1 and 10:6-2, arguing they were prevailing parties under the catalyst theory because their suit prompted changes and caused the transfers back to EMCF.
- The trial court denied fees, ruling plaintiffs were not prevailing parties since there was no final merits judgment, and the action lacked basis in law and did not influence the transfer decision.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Mason v. City of Hoboken and D. Russo require a two-prong catalyst analysis and remanded for plenary proceedings to assess causal nexus and basis in law.
- The court emphasized need for fact-sensitive, plenary hearings to challenge agency certifications and determine whether interim relief and the litigation causally related to the defendants’ conduct, with potential for partial fee recovery if the catalyst theory does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Catalyst theory applicability after mootness | Jones argued the action produced a voluntary change in conduct and thus a prevailing party. | DOC contends mootness and lack of final merits judgment bar prevailing-party status. | Remanded to apply Mason two-prong test; mootness alone cannot end inquiry. |
| Causal nexus between litigation and relief | There was a strong link between class certification/injunction and the return of women to EMCF. | Certifications show actions were independent of the suit. | Fact-specific inquiry required plenary hearing; certifications alone insufficient. |
| Basis in law for interim relief as basis for fees | Interim relief and certification evidenced a legal basis for relief and should support fees. | No final merits judgment; basis in law not established. | Plaintiffs may obtain partial fees for preliminary relief; if not, court to assess under Mason framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (N.J. 2008) (catalyst theory requires nexus and basis in law, not final merits)
- D. Russo, Inc. v. Township of Union, 417 N.J. Super. 384 (App.Div. 2010) (updates catalyst framework for partial fee recovery)
- Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126 (Supreme Court, 1982) (injunction standards for class actions)
- Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Russell, 946 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1991) (basis in law prong as a check against frivolous litigation)
- Best v. C & M Door Controls, Inc., 200 N.J. 348 (N.J. 2009) (fee-shifting purposes and access to judicial process)
- New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium v. N.J. Dep’t of Corr., 185 N.J. 137 (N.J. 2005) (policy context for fee-shifting and access to courts)
- Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 182 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2004) (attorney-fee applications and cautions against second-round litigation)