Leardini v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education et al

Filing 90

ORDER deferring ruling on 76 Motion for Attorney Fees until disposition of pending appeals. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 7/11/12. (bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:09-CV-264

JEFFREY T. LEARDINI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
)
BOARD OF EDUCATION and
)
KAY CUNNINGHAM, in her individual )
and official capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’
Fees and Costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 [D.I. 76]. For the reasons set forth
below, decision on Plaintiff’s Motion for fees and costs is postponed until after the appeal of the
following Orders: (1) the Order denying summary judgment based on the statute of limitations;
and (2) the Order denying the requests for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 50 and a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.
Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Orders. Defendants
urge this Court not to decide Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs until after the
appeal, arguing that the Fourth Circuit may adjudicate the claims differently and such decision
may change the analysis on attorneys’ fees. While that may be true, it is also true that if the
Fourth Circuit affirms this Court’s decisions, then Plaintiff will presumably be entitled to
additional attorneys’ fees after handing the appeal. Because the matter of attorneys’ fees will

1

likely need to be revisited in either scenario, in the interest of judicial economy, adjudication on
the issue is postponed pending decision on the appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 11, 2012

2