MIGLIORI v. LEHIGH COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
5:22-cv-00397
E.D. Pa.May 19, 2025Background:
- Plaintiffs, a bipartisan group of voters, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after their mail-in ballots were set aside for lack of a handwritten date on the return envelope in the November 2021 election.
- Plaintiffs argued the rejection of their ballots violated their constitutional rights and the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B).
- The District Court initially ruled for the Lehigh County Board of Elections, granting summary judgment to the defendant.
- The Third Circuit reversed, finding plaintiffs had capacity and rejecting the disqualification of ballots under the Materiality Provision, then ordered the ballots to be counted, which was completed and certified.
- After the Supreme Court later vacated the Third Circuit decision as moot (since the election results had already been certified), plaintiffs moved for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- This Report and Recommendation addresses only the reasonableness of fees, not whether plaintiffs are the prevailing party (which the Court previously decided in plaintiffs’ favor).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status | Plaintiffs prevailed as their votes were counted | Plaintiffs did not prevail; relief was temporary/moot | Plaintiffs are prevailing parties as they received judicially sanctioned, lasting relief |
| Reasonableness of hours claimed (amount of fee) | Hours and rates requested are reasonable | Hours are excessive, duplicative, unnecessary | Significant reductions made; only reasonable, supported hours allowed |
| Community rate: Allentown vs. Philadelphia rates | Philadelphia rates should apply | Allentown market rates should apply | Allentown market rates govern; CLS fee schedule is persuasive for hourly rates |
| Documentation/support for attorney fee requests | Requested fees for fee litigation are recoverable | Requests lack adequate support | Fees for fee litigation denied due to inadequate documentation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (standard for calculating reasonable attorney’s fees using the lodestar method)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (reasonable attorney’s fees based on prevailing community rates)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177 (burdens for proving/rebutting reasonableness of fees and hours)
- Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181 (criteria for reducing attorney hours, reasonable rates)
- Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 426 F.3d 694 (relevant legal community for determining fee rates)
- Johnson v. Georgia Hwy. Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (listing the Johnson factors for attorney’s fee determination)