preliminary injunction in which it defended, in part, the at-large system of electing council persons; filed a pre-trial statement in which it sought, at bottom, to maintain the status quo; and opposed the concept of continuing federal jurisdiction. We find therefore that the City of Pittsburgh is legally culpable for any subsequent fee award, that it was the major defendant in this action, that plaintiffs devoted their time to litigating against this party, and that equitable considerations require that we hold the City of Pittsburgh responsible for attorney fees and costs.
We turn now to the fees and costs to which plaintiffs may be entitled. The Supreme Court has instructed that "the degree of the plaintiff's success in relation to the other goals of the lawsuit is a factor critical to the determination of the size of a reasonable fee, not to eligibility for a fee award at all." Texas State Teachers Association v. Garland Independent School District, 489 U.S. 782, 109 S. Ct. 1486, 1492, 103 L. Ed. 2d 866 (1989). The hours spent on that portion of the claim on which plaintiffs failed to prevail must be excluded from our calculations of a reasonable fee. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983). Specifically, plaintiffs are not entitled to most of the fees and costs relating to preparation for the hearing on the preliminary injunction because the referendum mooted much of the relief that was sought at that time. See, transcript of conferences dated Feb. 13 and June 4, 1987.
We have reviewed the fee petition submitted by plaintiffs' counsel and we are unable to determine the hours that are related to the issues on which plaintiffs have prevailed and those hours that relate to unsuccessful claims. In particular, we are unable to determine the reasonable hours that were expended in assuring that plaintiffs' rights were protected in the consent decree, the apportionment process, the fairness hearings and thereafter. Obviously, plaintiffs' counsel did not have the benefit of our ruling when the petition was prepared and therefore we will require counsel to submit an amended petition with appropriate deletions. We note however that the original fee petition failed to comply with the teachings of the Court of Appeals.
An amended petition shall be submitted and verified on behalf of each lawyer that is seeking a fee, and submitted to the court within 60 days. Counsel shall set forth on each page on a line-by-line basis the following information: Date -- Specific Nature of Work -- Hours Expended -- Fee Claimed.
The costs, if any, shall be itemized with particularity with respect to the claims on which plaintiffs have prevailed, and included with the fee petitions.
A written order will follow.
DATED: December 27, 1989
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 1989,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on the issue of prevailing party status be and hereby is granted with respect to the issues on which plaintiffs have prevailed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall be considered prevailing parties with respect to certain issues.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' counsel shall each file within 60 days amended and verified fee petitions in which counsel set forth the fees that are attributable to those issues on which plaintiffs have prevailed as set forth in the opinion of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each fee petition shall set forth on each page on a line-by-line basis and for each lawyer the following: Date -- Specific Nature of Work -- Hours Expended -- Fee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file within 60 days an amended statement of costs which sets forth with specificity the costs that are related to the issues on which plaintiffs have prevailed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.