Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

08/27/76 William E. Moten, Sr., Et v. Bricklayers

August 27, 1976

WILLIAM E. MOTEN, SR., ET AL

v.

BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, ET AL., ANTHONY IZZO COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT; WILLIAM E. MOTEN, SR., ET AL.

v.

BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, ET



Leventhal and Robinson, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

AL. MASON CONTRACTORS

ASSOCIATION OF THE

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA, APPELLANT

No. 74-1835, No. 74-1837

Reported at: 543 F.2d 224 at 239. 1976.CDC.197

Date Reported: Original Opinion of May 6, 1976 at: 543 F.2d 224.

APPELLATE PANEL:

PER CURIAM DECISION

On Motion to Tax Attorneys Fees Against Appellant in No. 74-1837 (Civil 2329-71).

Moten, in behalf of a class of black bricklayers, brought an action against the Unions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The action against the Unions *fn1 resulted in a settlement. The District Judge approved the settlement preliminarily and scheduled a hearing. Objections to the settlement were presented in the District Court, and appeals were taken to this court, by an employer, Izzo, No. 74-1835, who sought to intervene as a party defendant, and also by an employer's association, Mason Contractors Association, No. 74-1837, which presented objections without formally presenting a motion to intervene. *fn2 Both Izzo and the Association were represented by the same law firm. Moten, et al., as appellees, filed a motion to dismiss or for summary affirmance as to Izzo, and a motion to dismiss the appeal of the Association for lack of jurisdiction.

On May 6, 1976, we issued an opinion. We easily dismissed the Association's appeal for want of jurisdiction, since it had not sought to be made a party and was therefore treated as no more than an amicus curiae. There was more difficulty in regard to Izzo's appeal, and there we affirmed the settlement order of the District Court, which included a provision denying Izzo's application for intervention.

Moten, et al. now present a motion under the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k), to tax attorneys' fees and other costs against the Association respecting No. 74-1837. The attached bill shows a modest sum, approximately $200.00, as costs, but claims attorneys' fees for services rendered in connection with both appeals at $6,787.50, and for services rendered in connection with the motion to tax attorneys' fees and costs at $2,300.00. Both calculations reflect time of the partner involved at $75 per hour, and time of associates of the law firm at $50 per hour. No award is sought from Izzo, appellant in No. 74-1835, because Izzo has made a lump sum payment in connection with settlement of the Kimber suit, which ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.