Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Doe v. Township of Hampton
No. 94-811 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 1996) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51561
Description
Plaintiffs Awarded $57,000 in Fees Following Their Successful Challenge to Township’s Opposition to Group Home for Persons with Mental Disabilities
Abstract
Adopting the magistrate’s report and recommendation, the
district court has held that plaintiffs are entitled to $57,052 in
attorney fees. Plaintiffs, four teenaged individuals with
psychological, emotional, and/or neurological disabilities and a
nonprofit provider of services to persons with mental disabilities,
challenged defendant township’s actions, which essentially
precluded plaintiffs from residing in a four-bedroom house situated
on a one-and-one-half acre lot in Hampton, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs
claimed that defendant invoked its zoning laws as a means to
prevent them from residing there, in violation of the Fair Housing
Act. Following oral argument on defendant’s motion to
dismiss, the parties settled, and plaintiffs sought attorney fees.
Defendant opposed plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that plaintiffs
had initiated this action in lieu of providing defendant with
information it had requested regarding plaintiffs’
disabilities. Defendant asserted that it would have complied with
its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation required by the
Fair Housing Act once it had received adequate assurances that
plaintiffs were disabled persons. Rejecting defendant’s
arguments, the magistrate found that plaintiffs had achieved the
benefits that they sought through litigation. The magistrate noted
that, before suit was filed, plaintiffs had requested a reasonable
accommodation from defendant regarding its zoning ordinance, which
limited the number of unrelated individuals who may reside in a
house; however, defendant failed to amend its ordinance and
indicated that it intended to institute legal proceedings against
plaintiffs for alleged zoning violations. Adopting the
magistrate’s report and recommendations, the district court
awarded plaintiffs’ three attorneys $57,052 in attorney fees
for over 319 hours of legal work calculated at hourly rates ranging
from $150 to $200 per hour. The court also awarded plaintiffs $668
in costs.
