Plaintiff, the editor of a local newspaper, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against the Newark Police Department on January 23, 2008 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-1. Plaintiff, represented by attorneys from Seton Hall University School of Law and the ACLU of ...
read more >
Plaintiff, the editor of a local newspaper, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against the Newark Police Department on January 23, 2008 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-1. Plaintiff, represented by attorneys from Seton Hall University School of Law and the ACLU of New Jersey, sought damages, alleging that police officers violated his First Amendment right to receive and record information for later dissemination, Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, corresponding provisions in the New Jersey State Constitution, and the New Jersey Reporter Shield Law. Specifically, plaintiff's allegations revolved around an August 4, 2007 incident in which Newark Police Department officers confiscated a photographer's camera and detained plaintiff under threat of arrest until he agreed to turn over all copies of photographs related to a murder in a rash of violence in the city described as an embarrassment to local law enforcement.
On December 23, 2009, plaintiff petitioned for judgment after agreeing with the Newark Police Department to settle the case in the amount of $55,000. On the same day, plaintiff also filed a Request to File an Application for Attorneys' Fees. In entering judgment on February 22, 2010, the District Court (Judge Faith S. Hochberg) granted the judgment in the amount of $55,000 and denied plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees on the grounds that the settlement agreement included all attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on March 9, 2010. On July 19, 2011, the Court of Appeals (Judge Thomas M. Hardiman) reversed the District Court and held that, since the offer of settlement did not explicitly reference the inclusion of fees, attorneys' fees were not included in the settlement. The case was remanded to the District Court to determine reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
On October 13, 2011, the parties settled the remaining attorneys' fees claim. On October 24, 2011, the District Court (Judge Faith S. Hochberg) ordered the case closed. Plaintiff entered a notice that the judgment of $55,000, and additional attorneys' fees, had been paid in full on October 23, 2012.
Brendan Brown - 09/21/2014
compress summary
