ILNews

Judge: Parents must pay fees in frivolous suit

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Two parents challenging a new school-uniform policy in Anderson lost their legal battle in August after a federal judge dismissed the case. This week, parents Laura and Scott Bell have been ordered to pay attorneys' fees and court costs of approximately $40,931 to defendants Anderson Community Schools and the board of trustees.

U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder issued the order Thursday, recounting reasons for ruling in favor of the school district four months ago and issuing a note of caution for future pro se plaintiffs.

The Bells filed suit in Madison Circuit Court in July against the school corporation, claiming that a policy set to start on the first day of school in August would violate the constitutional right of children for a free education. That dress code - similar to those implemented in other Hoosier school districts such as the Indianapolis Public Schools - limits students to black, navy, or khaki pants or skirts, and solid color shirts and sweaters. Students wouldn't be allowed to wear baggy pants or skirts sagging below their midriffs, or shirts with writing on them, the parents claimed.

Anderson Community Schools had asked for summary judgment July 30, noting there is no basis for the federal or state law claims regarding a constitutional right to a "free education" and is no violation of "parental rights" under the Ninth and 14th Amendments.

Judge Tinder dismissed the case after pointing out that the pro se parent plaintiffs "utterly failed" to respond to discovery requests and hadn't shown any likelihood of prevailing in court.

"Plaintiffs offered no timely response to the Defendants' summary judgment motion, even though the court allowed them as pro se parties every latitude to pursue their claims, and encouraged them to obtain the assistance of counsel," Judge Tinder wrote in Thursday's ruling. "The court even gave them guidance on how to focus on the proper issues before the court. Plaintiffs were advised on more than one occasion that the losing party in this case may be required to pay the other side's costs, and even attorneys' fees."

Though the defendants met deadlines in the expedited schedule caused by the parents' request for injunctive relief, those plaintiffs did not attempt to persuade the court not to award any fees. Judge Tinder wrote that because the plaintiffs' civil rights claims lacked any reasonable basis in fact or law, they are considered frivolous and the fees can be awarded. The judge determined the lodestar amount - the reasonable number of hours worked multiplied by the market rate - should be used to determine the fee amount of $40,931.50.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT