National Rifle Association of America, Inc. et al v. The City of Chicago et al

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/28/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
VILLAGE OF OAK PARK,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
)
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF
)
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 08 C 3696

Case No. 08 C 3697

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 25 this Court issued its memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") that granted
in part and denied in part plaintiff NRA's motion for its attorneys' fees in these two actions. In
the process of untangling the arguments and counterarguments dealing with the amount of the
award, the Opinion did not speak to the question of the two defendants' respective
responsibilities for payment of the ultimate award (that omission was of course understandable
because the parties' artillery was really trained on other targets). To be sure, NRA's Mem. 1-2
said briefly that Oak Park and Chicago are jointly and severally liable for a portion of the award,

but it did not explain why. On that score Robinson v. City of Harvey, 617 F.3d 915, 917 (7th
Cir. 2010) explains:
[W]hen multiple defendants are jointly and severally liable for an award of
damages, they are also jointly and severally liable for attorneys' fees under §1988.
But here Oak Park and Chicago were not "multiple defendants" -- each had a separate ordinance,
and NRA brought separate lawsuits against the two municipalities.
It is true that on appeal the cases were consolidated, so that NRA's submission as to fees
characterizes the bulk of its lawyers' services as providing value to both cases. That however
does not justify imposing joint and several liability, the consequence of which would be that
NRA would be free to choose from which defendant it would seek a greater recovery, thus
imposing a disproportionate share of the burden on that defendant.1
Instead the more fair approach will be to allocate the largest part of the fee award -- the
portion that NRA ascribes to both lawsuits -- ratably between Oak Park and Chicago, so that each
will bear (1) a several (and not joint) liability for that ratable share plus (2) the amount that NRA
has ascribed to that defendant alone. Because each of the parties has a stake in the answer to the
issue posed here, each is directed to provide a statement as to its position in time for the subject
to be considered together with the others posed by the Opinion.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: June 28, 2012.

1

Indeed, such a search for a deeper pocket was a specified source of concern in the
Robinson case (see 617 F.3d at 917).
-2-