This is a summary of the infamous Abner Louima case. a matter which attracted international attention and sparked demonstrations on New York City Hall in 1997 for its allegations of conscious-shocking police abuse. On August 8, 1998, Louima's private attorneys, who included the late Johnnie Cochran, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the City of New York, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) and various individual police officers, alleging police brutality. Louima, a Haitian immigrant, claimed that he was beaten and sodomized with a broken piece of a broomstick or toilet plunger, in a Brooklyn stationhouse bathroom following his arrest at a Haitian nightclub. Louima claimed that the following his torture, officers and the PBA engaged in a widespread conspiracy to cover-up the incident. Louima further alleged that the officer's brutality was the caused by the policies, customs and/or practices of the NYPD and the PBA, including a "code of silence" that existed within the department. Louima's wife alleged a claim for loss of consortium.
Five of the individual officers named as defendants in Louima's civil suit were also indicted on federal criminal violations stemming from the attack on Louima. Two separate criminal trials began while Louima's civil case was pending. One defendant officer, Justin Volpe, eventually pled guilty to charges relative to his involvement. Other officers were convicted, but the convictions were overturned on appeal, with charges against one officer being remanded for a new trial. See U.S. v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76 (2nd Cir. 2002).
Louima's complaint was amended three times, with the third amended complaint being filed on September 27, 2000. Several individual defendants filed cross-claims, but the legal basis for those cross-claims is unclear from the docket. The PBA responded to the third amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. PBA argued in part that plaintiffs' third amended complaint did not adequately allege that the PBA acted under color of state law, nor that it conspired with a state actor to deprive plaintiffs' civil rights. Plaintiffs served a memorandum in opposition to PBA's motion to dismiss, addressing the novel issue of the PBA's potential liability in a Section 1983 police brutality case.
In March 2001 Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak entered a protective order in the case, restricting public access to the proceedings and pleadings. With settlement talks ongoing, Judge Pollak also ordered that all parties to the litigation refrain from publicly disclosing any information regarding settlement negotiations. The protective order was amended several times thereafter and eventually lifted on October 17, 2002.
After years of discovery and protracted settlement negotiations, the case was globally settled for $8.75 million (the City agreeing to pay $7.125 million; the PBA agreeing to pay $1.625 million) in exchange for dismissal of the claims against all of the defendants, except for Officers Charles Schwarz and Francisco Rosario. On July 23, 2001, a stipulation and order of settlement and dismissal was filed. There was a dispute among Louima's attorneys as to the distribution of attorneys' fees, so district court judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. ordered that the amount of the fees be placed in an escrow account, overseen by trustee Ronald L. Garnett, Esq., pending resolution of the fee dispute.
A hearing was held before the court beginning on October 16, 2002, regarding the attorney fee dispute. On October 5, 2004, district court judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. adopted magistrate judge Pollack's report and recommendation on the fee dispute in part and awarded several of the attorneys less than 10% of the total attorneys' fees of $2.9 million. The majority of the fees were ordered payable to attorneys Cochran, Neufeld, Scheck and Rubenstein.
Attorney Roper-Simpson appealed the order. The second circuit court of appeals affirmed and the district court thereafter ordered the distribution of the attorney's fees in accordance with its order.
Dan Dalton - 01/02/2007
compress summary
