Rose Price v. Norbert Pelka Gertrude Pelka Audrey Pelka

PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Rose Pelka; PELKA; Au-

Norbert Gertrude Pelka, Defendants-Appellees.

drey

No. 81-3369. Appeals, States Circuit.

Sixth

Argued June 11, 1982.

Decided Oct. Friedman, Cleveland, Ohio,

Avery S. plaintiff-appellant. Cleveland, Ohio, for Scully,

Lawrence B. defendants-appellees. MERRITT, KEITH

Before Circuit PHILLIPS, Judges, and Circuit Senior Judge.

KEITH, Judge. The United States District Court vacated its Northern District of Ohio prevailing party fees to a suit, housing discrimination and denied fees for certain mo- below, tions. For the reasons discussed we hold that the district court abused its dis- cretion. at issue would be made available apartment

FACTS to Ms. Price. Norbert and defendant-appelleеs, The Pelka, apartment offered an Gertrude Pelkas later refused to make their The Plain- newspaper advertisement. rent in a Price. dwelling available to Ms. On No- Price, this responded to tiff-appellant, Rose court ordered vember the district arranged an interview and advertisement Price enter the the Pelkas to allow Ms. When Ms. Price arrived with the Pelkas. by Dеcember 1980. When the apartment interview, she was informed that order, comply failed to with this defendants already been rented. apartment had contempt. the court held the Pelkas in black, and the Pelkas are white. Ms. Price is directed the United Mar- court also States a white Subsequently, McNeeley, Edward obtaining Price in access shall to assist Ms. the Pel- person, swоre an affidavit apartment. to the Pelkas’ apartment the same after kas offered him 5,1980, Ms. Price moved to On December informing Ms. Price that it had been rented. security deposit and first set off her 23, 1980, Ms. Price filed a On October against judgment previ- month’s rent District complaint in the United States granted The district court ously awarded. Ohio, District of Court for the Northern Subsequently, Ms. Price’s at- this mоtion. violations of the Fair alleging attorney fees for torney sought additional seq. 3601 et U.S.C. § Pelkas, post-trial motions. how- 1981 and 1982. Ms. Price named Nor- §§ ever, objected request. to this fee bert, Gertrude, Pelka as de- Audrey Subsequently, the Pelkas filed a motion Price moved day, fendants. That same Ms. judgment pursuant to Fed. for relief from temporary restraining for and received a 60(b), allеging R.Civ.P. that Ms. Price had (“TRO”) prohibiting order the defendants committed the November 5 hear dispos- showing, renting, from or otherwise ing. Specifically, they alleged that Ms. apartment in issue. married, Price was not and that she had 5,1980, merged a On November ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‍court previous tenancy. evicted from her been injunction hearing preliminary for a with a supporting The Pelkas attached an affidavit hearing, trial on the merits. Prior to this allegations. Relying upon their these alle Ms. Price informed the the defendants and gations, previ the district court revoked its district court that the defendants admitted punitive damages ous and its Moreover, liability. the defendants’ fees. The liability during counsel admitted their his grant also refused to Ms. Price opening hearing, statement. At Ms. The court fees for the motions. employed by that she was Price testified its Ms. Price did not vacate System, Postal that she United States the merits of her claims prevailed on and that her husband was a Act and 42 under plumber. that her two She also testified Indeed, written former landlords had each letters court reaffirmed its award of as com $500 stating would recommend her and Moreover, pensatоry damages. it did not family very highly. Finally, her she testi- apart order Ms. Price to vacate the Pelkas’ previous tenancy fied that her was termi- ment. house. nated because the owners sold the perfected appeal. Immediately following hearing, district court found that the Pelkas had THE COURT WHETHER DISTRICT violated the Fair Act and U.S.C. DISCRETION ABUSED ITS Ms. 1981 and 1982. The court awarded $500, puni- making attorney fee awаrds compensatory damages Price cases, ap $1,500, longer “courts are no damages tive rea- $800 equitable powers to day, plying That same their historical sonable fee. adequate remedy.” Northcross represented to the court devise Pelkas having the additional benefit of his Memphis City of Education Board wrong- fees assessed 1979), counsel Schоols, However, party. where a of- 911, 100 denied, cert. sup- perjured testimony fers in order to Instead, the award of humiliation, port anger, claim of rights cases is now a fees in civil embarrassment due to racial discrimina- for remedy. Id. The' standards statutory attorney of fees to that an award arising in cases un awarding attorney fees unjust. Notwithstanding party would be are con U.S.C, 42 1981 аnd 1982 der the fact the defendants admitted Rights Attorneys Fee tained in the Civil trial, prior this Court 1988, 1976, Act of 42 as Awards U.S.C. § appropriate permit does not find it the provides perti in amended. 1988 Section of plaintiff to benefit from an assessment part: nent the defendants. any proceeding to enforce action the court Ms. Price 1981, provision of sections 1982 ... of vacating abused its discretion in the attor- discretion, title, court, may the in its ney fee award for the trial on the merits. prevailing party, allow the other than the agree. We States, attorney’s fee a reasonable as provisions costs. The of 42 U.S.C. 1988 are § more liberal than those of 42 U.S.C. 1980). 42 IV (Supp. 1988 Similar- U.S.C. § 3612(c). prevailing party A can recover § ly, awarding attorney the standards for 3612(c) only if fеes under section arising fees in cases party the district court finds that the is not 3612(c). Act are contained in 42 U.S.C. § financially able to assume these fees. Sec 3612(c) provides: Section 1988, however, prevailing tion allows a plaintiff to recover without consideration of (C) RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE party’s financial condition. Ms. Price DAMAGES —LIMITATION—COURT clearly prevailing party is within the FEES COSTS —ATTORNEYS meaning of 42 1988 and 42 U.S.C. U.S.C. § relief, it grant as may 3612(c). prevailed the merits of She § . .. reasonable attor- appropriate, deems her claim under ney prevailing plain- in of a the case her claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ Provided, tiff: That the said 754, Hampton, Hanrahan v. 446 100 opinion financially is not the court 1987, (1980); Harring S.Ct. able to assume said fees. Education, ton v. Vandalia-Butler Board of (1976). Thus, 3612(c) 42 U.S.C. § denied, (6th 1978), 192 cert. 585 F.2d Cir. prevailing party fees to a under 932, 2053, 60 S.Ct. 3612(c) either 42 or 42 U.S.C. U.S.C. § (1979).1 1988 is within the district court’s discre- § prevailed on the merits of her tion. claims under both In vacating fee award for Act and 42 1981 and 1982. We U.S.C. §§ trial, as fol- district court reasoned hold that she is entitled to benefit from the lows: provisions more liberal of 42 1988. U.S.C. § The true beneficiary of an award of (5th Lundy, v. 667 F.2d 1198 Woods-Drake prevailing party. fees is 1982). language of section 1988 is Cir. Where a therefore, has vindicated his or permissive, an award of rights nature, Rife, rights a civil case of this Marr v. discretionary. fees is See (6th 1976). that party analysis should be entitled to receive F.2d 554 Cir. Our fo- Harrington Rights 1. Edu Civil Act of 2000e- § Vandalia-Butler Board of cation, 5(k) however, (6th 1978), (1976). Congress, 585 F.2d 192 cert. de intended for Cir. nied, governing 60 L.Ed.2d the standards fees awards apply under VII to awards under involved an award Title to also 706(k) fees under section of Title VII of the 1988. Rights Attorney’s The Civil Fees the dis- of whether on the issue cuses its discretion abused liberally trict court construed to achieve Act should under 42 U.S.C. § the award in its enact purposes involved public Quarterly County ment. Seals section 1988 language of Although the Tennessee, dis- County, exercise its court must Madison permissive, congressiоnal with 1977); S.Rep.No.94-1011, consistent su cretion In enact- this statute. underlying purpose purpose of the Civil primary A pra at 5910. Attorney’s Fees ing the Civil promote Fees Act is to Rights Attorney’s Congress intended Act of Awards civil laws. enforcement of private ordinarily recover at- prevailing parties Report accompanying The Senate expressly stated Congress tornеys Act states: Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards ordinarily party “should the prevailing depend heavily laws [The] special cir- fee unless recover enforcement, and fee upon private would render such cumstances remedy proved awards ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‍have essential Cong., 94th 2d unjust.” S.Rep.No.94-1011, Cong. meaning 4, private & if citizens are to have a reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Sess. Newman v. quoting Ad.News impor to vindicate opportunity 400, Inc., 390 Enterprises, Piggie Park policies which these Congressional tant 966, 402, 964, 88 S.Ct. laws contain. Club, Gaslight Inc. (1968). New York See In under our civil many cases 54, 63, 100 Carey, laws, must sue to rights the citizen who Northcross, (1980)2; L.Ed.2d 723 64 money the law has little or no enforce 633; County Board of F.2d at Monroe 611 lawyer. private to hire a If with which Tennessee], County, Education of [Madison assert their сivil citizens are to be able to 1978). if those who violate the Na- rights, and special no circumstances There are pro- laws are not to tion’s fundamental render an award of this ease which would impunity, then citizens must ceed with unjust. undisputed fees It is attorney what it opportunity to recover have the dwelling to refused to rent their the Pelkas rights in to vindicate these cоsts them she is black. The solely because court. violating the Fair Hous Pelkas’ for 1981 and 1982 was ing Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ supra at 5910. S.Rep.No.94-1011, Ms. Price’s any way by not affected in the Fair enforcement of Private was Ms. Price testified that she perjury. 1981 and Housing Act and U.S.C. §§ plumber, was a that her husband rights the civil 1982 not vindicates refer had received favorable and that she discrimination, but victim of the individual Although fоrmer landlords. ences from her eradicating by interest promotes public testimony established that this the Pelkas housing The eradication discrimination. untrue, testimony was total Ms. Price’s was policy is a that Con housing of whether the discrimination to the ly irrelevant Act priori Pelkas violated highest to gress considered fact, prior 42 U.S.C. §§ Metropolitan Life Insur Trafficante v. ty. liabil trial, аdmitted their the Pelkas Co., 93 S.Ct. ance statement, the Pel During opening his ity. vio again kas’ admitted order, court’s if allowed district Act and lated the stand, policy pro- frustrate the would Moreover, nothing in and 1982. of the Fair moting private enforcement Ms. Price’s attor the record indicates that seq., et 42 U.S.C. Indeed, it perjury. to her ney contributed 1866, 42 Act of the Civil attorney did not Ms. Price’s appears that fees 1982. Awards 1981 and perjuring herself. know she note 1. 2. See chill a victim of ability of the remedies neces- discrimination’s integral

are an compliance competent with the civil attract counsel.3 sary to obtain supra rights S.Rep.No.94-1011, laws. Accordingly, we hold that recognized that section Congress court abused its discretion in benefits the individual victims of dis- trial fеes for the on the public by interest eradi- crimination and merits. of the district court cating housing discrimination. Private en- reversed, and this case is remanded to the prohibiting housing forcement of the laws proceedings consistent effectively cannot occur if discrimination opinion.4 with this are required the victims of discrimination legal representatives. act their own MERRITT, Judge, dissenting. Therefore, competent counsel must be at- I respectfully disagree with our Court cases. See types S.Rep. tracted to these Judge that District Ann Aldrich erred 1011, supra at 5913. No.94— denying attorney’s will Competent housing counsel be reluctant fair case. The District rea- with- represent potential plaintiffs if courts soned as follows: though hold fee awards even bеneficiary The true of an award of plaintiffs prevail on the merits. This is prevailing party. is the one, especially true cases like this where Where a has vindicated his or her absolutely Ms. Price’s had no rele- nature, in a civil case of this of whether the Pelkas vance to the party should be entitled to receive Moreover, rights. civil violated Ms. Price’s having the аdditional benefit of his or her Ms. Price’s did not contribute to wrong- counsel fees assessed the Thus, perjury. allowing However, her the district party. party where a of- the attorney’s to vacate fee award perjured testimony sup- fers in order to effectively humiliation, under these circumstances would port anger, a claim of and parties interest, attorneys in 3. cоurt’s order the award real are entitled The district day attorney’s punish a fees was intended to Ms. to in court. perjuring 643 F.2d at 320. Price for herself. The court reasoned beneficiary of an that “the true ney award of attor- 4. Ms. Price that the also district court Thus, prevailing party.” it fees is the denying abused its discretion in her motion for plaintiff inappropriate ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‍to the would be allow attorney’s post-tri- an award of fees for several benefit from an fee award. finding al motions. After that the Pelkas had reasoning Lip- of the Fifth Circuit in and 42 violated Act U.S.C. Wise, 1981) scomb 643 F.2d 319 is ordered, judge and the contrary reasoning. to the district court’s In alia, provide inter the Pelkas to Ms. Price with attorneys Lipscomb the court held that who apartment. post-trial access to the Ms. Price’s represented plaintiffs in a civil suit had primarily sought compliance motions to obtain standing appeal a district court’s denial of Thereafter, with this order. she obtained ac- attorney’s The court stated: apartment. cess to the Pelkas’ Ordinarily, may appeal an from a prevailed merits of on the her adversely by party-litigant be takеn a claims Act and by theory, attorneys it. for a affected litigant U.S.C. 1981 and 1982. Her did not personally by judg- are not affected Therefore, liability. although affect the Pelkas’ in the limited in ment. Even class of cases vacated the fees the court award of may awarded, which be punitive damages, it reaffirmed the and prevailing party, award is made to the not to comрensatory damages. To the extent that However, matter, practical counsel. as a post-trial Ms. Price’s efforts allowed her to re- , lawyer frequently only person adverse- compensatory damages to obtain ac- ceive ly are denied. affected when apartment, to reason- cess to the she is entitled indigent An client has no real finаncial inter- 1988. § able fees under est in whether his is awarded fees. remand, Accordingly, the district court may indigent, If the client is not attorney’s fees for should award reasonable n fact, party aggrieved if still be the pursuant Price’s efforts Ms. recovery by client’s net is not affected Northcross, 611 F.2d at set forth in standards amount for fees. When are the allowed dissenting opinions raciаl due to discrimina- of Justices White embarrassment in Alyeska Pipeline fees to that Marshall Co. v. Wilder 240, 272, unjust. ness Society, would be and Pro (App. 102.) article, Lawyers fessor Dawson’s and Invol Although the defendants committed se- Litigation, untary Clients in Public Interest wrong rious under the Act 88 Harv.L.Rev. it pay damages, and were required provides that a Section 1988 successful another serious committed rights рlaintiff civil should be awarded fees wrong: she lied several times under oath in “in the judge. discretion” of questions con- court below in answer Nothing language suggests in this it cerning credibility, character and dam- equitable was intended to eliminate consid- ages. steady testified that she had a She equation. erations from the I do not know previous job, good had a rec- strange what the rationale for such a read- evicted ord and had never been for miscon- be, word “discretion” would duct. were These statements false. provide the Court has not tried to a ration- apparently equi- Our has now read It has argue ale. not tried to that such out of the principles completely table are designed simply compensate awards statute, Fees Attorneys lawyer benefit the rather than client the view that a and has advanced § easing litigation, the burden of my must, prevailing plaintiff willy-nilly, legislative history review the the stat- civil no such fees in a case awarded ute and the there is sup- cases indicates no inequitable. Although agree matter I how port plaintiff’s position whatever for the rights plaintiffs “prevailing” read as a lawyer’s should be ordinarily should be awarded welfare bill. fees, equitable I not eliminate consid- would plaintiff’s The fact that misconduct I process. erations from the decisional with her directly was not connected testi- principle would follow the stated New- mony regarding liability, a defendants’ Inc., Enterprises, Piggie man v. Park Court, seems point stressed irrele- L.Ed.2d plaсe me. took vant to Her misconduct discretionary- similar interpreting a directly was II courtroom and connected of Title of the provision fee-award engaged with the case. If she had in an Rights Act of 1964. Court held defendants, lawyer entitled assault or plaintiffs successful are to recover case, I other in the think that special participants “unless circumstances would render might of unjust.” justify such Id. at also the denial 88 S.Ct. fees, does not “special although go at 966. Those circumstances” are such conduct case. I know present here, Judge phase Aldrich found. of the of no clean principle limits the hands doc- law at common in America Historically considerations so equitable trine other “equi fees was an the award of narrowly. itself in cer table” matter that addressed below, Despite in the tain “discretion” or her conduct cases to the chancellor’s plaintiff were en- “legal” rights has ob of the Supreme conscience. The clean “is No hands of the forced the main action. question served that principle equitable of or jurisdiction the federal doctrinе other equity historic obtaining her original authority used to bar her from due “part courts” of the But the equity particular ques- Act. to do chancellor Bank, equi- of Ticonic tion of fees is a Sprague Nat’l situation.” 777, 779, not done ty, equity. L.Ed. and the has 59 S.Ct. un- thorough repeated discussion of Her deliberate and falsehoods For a Court, like the of fees in der oath the District of awards history conduct, reprehensible. The States, majority see the defendants’ United was entitled to exercise its District Court deny attorney’s It

discretion wrongs com-

sought to redress both of plaintiff’s

mitted in this case—the as well willingness

as the defendants’. Our Court’s recognize wrong the defendants’ plaintiff’s perjury provides

and to overlook rights plaintiffs

an for civil incentive

their counsel to win cases and deception ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‍and unethical con- through

duct, undermining integrity thereby judicial Refusal process. reward

plaintiff’s disparagе conduct does not any equality. It en- principle principle equality by requir-

hances the equal respect dignity rights plaintiff

others from both the civil expresses

and the civil defendant and

the view that both must observe the ties society.

that bind CORBIN,

Jesse Wilson d/b/a Corbin’s

Texaco, Plaintiff-Appellee, Houston, Tex., Bailey, Bruce C. Randall TEXACO, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Robinson, Plains, Y., B. White N. for de- fendant-appellant. No. 81-5519. Bonner, Branch, Miss., James L. Olive Appeals, States Court plaintiff-appellee. Circuit. Sixth KENNEDY, Judge,

Argued Sept. Before Circuit BROWN, Judge, Senior Circuit and HOLS ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‍ 14, 1982. Decided Oct. CHUH,* Judge. District BROWN, Judge.

BAILEY Senior appeals Texaco an order of the Appellant modifying preliminary district court in- junction. Texaco that this modifica- appellee which reduced rent Cor- obligated by pay bin was contract to Texa- co, beyond power of the district court.

* Holschuh, ting by designation. The Honorable John D. United States Ohio, Judge, District Southern District of sit-

Case Details

Case Name: Rose Price v. Norbert Pelka Gertrude Pelka Audrey Pelka

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Oct 11, 1982

Citation: 690 F.2d 98

Docket Number: 81-3369

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.