Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin Though Dotzel had made allegations of "improper motivation and corrupt dealing" by the defendants, the court found that he had not advanced enough evidence that a jury could conclude con~ science-shocking behavior had occurred. The case was dismissed. The defendants then filed a request seeking attorney's fees and costs from Dotzel. Decision: Request denied. In establishing the standard for awarding of attorneys fees, the u.s. Supreme Court had concluded that "a plaintiff should not be assessed his [ or her] opponent's attorney's fees unless a court finds that his [or her] claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." The defendants argued that Dotzel's failure to produce evidence that would persuade a jury to conclude that conscience-shocking behavior had occurred demonstrated that his claim was "ground- less and frivolous." Therefore, the defendants claimed, compensa- tion for their attorney's fees was appropriate. But the court found that Dotzel "did not misstate the controlling law or advance a the- ory clearly contrary to the holdings of any court. " The court noted that Dotzel had successfully pointed to sever- al instances of misbehavior on the part of township officials and that his argument that the decision in his favor from the state court constituted evidence that the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their actions was not entirely without merit. Dotzel also point- ed to relationships between officials and busi"nesses near his prop- erty that he claimed constituted evidence of self-dealing. While the court did not find that Dotzel's evidence was enough to meet the conscience-shocking standard, it was not frivolous. The court concluded that: "To conclude that [Dotzel] advanced a clearly frivolous or unreasonable position because [the] defen- dants prevailed [on their motion to dismiss the case] would lead" us to conclude that nearly every plaintiff who loses such a mo- tion in a zoning dispute would be liable for defendants' attorneys fees," which would be in direct opposition to the existing stan- dard attorneys fees award were "not routine, but [were] to be only sparingly awarded." See also: Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S. Ct. 694, 54 L. Ed. 2d 648, 16 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 502, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCR) P 8041 (1978). 8 136 /-'\ } j"'=) ) ~..