Smith v. HUDSON COUNTY REGISTER
29 A.3d 313
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Back-to-back OPRA appeals challenged copying fees charged by Hudson County and other counties as not based on actual costs.
- The Appellate Division held copying fees must be based on actual costs, leading to a prospective change in fee practice and remand for attorney’s fees consideration.
- Smith substantially prevailed in the prior appeal and sought counsel fees under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6; Zeiger filed a similar action but stayed and did not participate in the appeal.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against both plaintiffs on the fee issue, finding neither a prevailing party, and denied other relief.
- Legislation enacted after the remand amended N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b) to set a uniform $0.05 per-page copying rate, affecting the case posture and potential remedies.
- The court ultimately held Smith is a prevailing party entitled to counsel fees; Zeiger is not, and other requested remedies were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith is a prevailing party entitled to counsel fees | Smith prevailed by catalyzing lower court and statutory interpretation | Defendants contend no prevailing-party status since copies were provided | Yes, Smith is prevailing and entitled to fees |
| Whether Zeiger is a prevailing party entitled to counsel fees | Zeiger seeks fees as a related plaintiff | Zeiger lacked causal nexus and did not catalyze change | No, Zeiger not prevailing party |
| Whether the trial court should grant other remedies (accounting, injunction) | Remedies should follow from OPRA fee holding | Remedies unnecessary after legislative amendment | Remedies other than counsel fees are denied |
Key Cases Cited
- New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, 185 N.J. 137 (2005) (fee-shifting context for prevailing party concept under OPRA)
- Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (2001) (two-part test for prevailing party and catalyst theory)
- Teeters v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 387 N.J. Super. 423 (App.Div. 2006) (two-prong test for prevailing party and necessity of relief)
- D. Russo, Inc. v. Township of Union, 417 N.J. Super. 384 (App.Div. 2010) (catalyst theory for fee awards under civil rights context)
- Jones v. Hayman, 418 N.J. Super. 291 (App.Div. 2011) (catalyst principle in fee awards for class actions)
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (endorsement of catalyst nexus for OPRA fees)
- Libertarian Party of Central New Jersey v. Murphy, 384 N.J. Super. 136 (App.Div. 2006) (high copying fees as barrier to access under OPRA)
- Smith v. Hudson County Register, 411 N.J. Super. 538 (App.Div. 2010) (earlier ruling on actual costs vs. fixed fee and prospective relief)
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (OPRA fee-shifting and catalyst considerations)