Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05194/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05194-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JAY and CONNIE POTTER and

AMERICAN RV PARK, INC. PLAINTIFFS

v. Case No. 06-5194

CITY OF TONTITOWN, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Now on this 20 day of December, 2007, comes on for th

consideration defendants’ Motions for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

(Docs. 72, 74). The Court, being and well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that the defendants interfered in

various ways with the development of certain property owned by

the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ actions

violated their substantive and procedural due process rights;

resulted in a temporary taking of their property without

compensation; and violated their equal protection rights.

Plaintiffs also asserted state-law claims.

2. On August 13, 2007, the Court entered an order

granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint,

Case 5:06-cv-05194-JLH Document 87 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
1. With the exception of plaintiffs’ state-law claims and

federal takings claim, all claims were dismissed with

prejudice.

2

finding that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. (Doc.

71.)1

3. Defendants now move for an award of attorney’s fees

and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 42 U.S.C. §

1988. Section 1988(b) provides that “[i]n any action ... to

enforce a provision of sections ... [1983 or 1985], ... the

court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a

reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs....” A

prevailing defendant may recover fees if the plaintiff’s suit

was “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.” Marquart v. Lodge

837, 26 F.3d 842, 852 (8 Cir. 1994). However, courts should th

“resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc

reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not

ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or

without foundation.” Christiansburg Garment Co. V. EEOC, 434

U.S. 412, 421-22 (1978).

4. With these standards in mind, the Court does not

believe that an award of attorney’s fees is warranted in this

case. Plaintiffs’ claims were both factually and legally

Case 5:06-cv-05194-JLH Document 87 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

complex and cannot be characterized as “frivolous, unreasonable,

or groundless.” 

5. Accordingly, defendants’ Motions (Docs. 72, 74) are

DENIED to the extent that the Court will not award defendants

attorney’s fees. 

Defendants’ motions are GRANTED to the extent that they are

entitled, as prevailing parties, to recover other costs under

Rule 54(d). Defendants shall have ten days from the date of

this order to submit an itemized bill of costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

 JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 5:06-cv-05194-JLH Document 87 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>