The district court's determination that plaintiffs were entitled to maintain this action was integral to the 1993 permanent injunction. Defendants did not appeal that order. The district court's 1995 permanent injunction is, therefore, affirmed. Defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' brief or for an extension of time is denied. They challenge the district court's finding that they acted in bad faith and assert that any punishment for improper actions is appropriate only in a contempt action brought by the government in a separate proceeding.
Defendants further argue that the amount of attorney's fees awarded is excessive.
Finally, they maintain that attorney's fees were not warranted because legal services were provided at no cost to plaintiffs by a publicly funded legal aid program. We review a court's imposition of sanctions under its inherent power for abuse of discretion. We review the district court's determination whether the parties have complied with its orders under the clearly erroneous standard, mindful that the district court is in the best position to make that determination. Defendants allege that their actions were not taken in bad faith, and were not vexatious, wanton, or oppressive. We have considered defendants' statement of their reasons for their actions.