Where a fee request has been filed by plaintiff who prevailed in a suit involving the constitutionality of Michigan’s storing, utilizing and distributing newborn blood samples without parental consent, that request should be denied without prejudice given that an appeal is pending before the 6 th US. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“This six-year-old case involving the constitutionality of Michigan’s storing, utilizing, and distributing newborn blood samples without parental consent is in the home stretch. Indeed, in July 2023, this Court found for Plaintiffs on most of their constitutional claims and ordered an injunction in their favor. But the case has not crossed the finish line just yet. All Defendants appealed this Court’s July 2023 Opinion and Order, and this appeal remains pending before the Sixth Circuit.
“Simultaneous to Defendants’ appeal, Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, filed a motion for attorney’s fees seeking an award of over $400,000. But the Sixth Circuit’s opinion may significantly effect the extent to which Plaintiffs prevailed in the above-captioned case. And this Court will not proceed in piecemeal to award attorney’s fees on the discrete issues that have been finally decided and are not subject to appeal. In the interests of judicial efficiency, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees will be denied without prejudice, and Defendants’ separate Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s fees will be denied as moot.
“At this juncture, as all Parties agree, Plaintiffs prevailed when this Court granted summary judgment largely in their favor and ordered an injunction. But, if the Sixth Circuit disagrees with this Court’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment analyses and reverses, Plaintiffs will not have prevailed to the same extent, and ‘the calculation of attorneys fees would necessarily change.’
“Plaintiffs do not disagree. Instead, they explain that two of the three ‘tranches’ of this litigation have been finally decidedonly the third is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit. ... Thus, Plaintiffs argue, attorneys fees should be promptly awarded. ... But, even if this Court agreed with Plaintiffs’ characterization of tranches, it will not proceed in piecemeal to analyze, as Plaintiffs seem to suggest, the reasonableness of attorney’s fees for only two-thirds of the case. Indeed, as Defendants point out, proceeding in piecemeal is practically not possible because ‘Plaintiffs have not defined how many hours were spent on work related exclusively’ to each of their alleged ‘tranches.’ ... Further, as Defendants recognize, ‘if Plaintiffs achieve a total victory on appeal, that result would obliviate the need for a detailed, line-item accounting’ of the specific aspects of the case subject to a fee award.
“Although there are good reasons to promptly determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees, in some cases, deferring that determination is the most efficient course of action. ... Such is the case here.”
Kanuszewski v. Michigan Dep’t of Health & Human Serv.; MiLW 02-108005, 7 pages; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Ludington, J.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0