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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT