TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moon v. Smith

August MOON v. William Francis SMITH, Et Al.

Moon v. Smith, 523 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Va. 1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. Virginia · Federal District Courts
Decided
October 15, 1981
Docket
No. 81-0116-R
Judges
Warriner
Citations
523 F. Supp. 13321981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15230

Opinion — Warriner

MEMORANDUM ORDER WARRINER, District Judge.

The Court has heretofore determined that this litigation was commenced and prosecuted in bad faith. The defendants are government officials and they were represented in this action by an Assistant United States Attorney. They were sued in their official and in their individual capacities. Having prevailed on behalf of defendants, the United States seeks counsel fees. The Court requested counsel to brief the question of whether the federal government may be the beneficiary of the bad faith exception to the American Rule as enunciated in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 258-59 , 95 S.Ct. 1612, 1622 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975).

Having studied the briefs and law therein cited, the Court can perceive no reason why government officials should be harassed by bad faith litigation at no risk to the plaintiff. The meritless nature of such a suit makes manifest that plaintiff’s purpose was not to obtain a judgment but was merely to vex and harass or to obtain publicity. If a plaintiff can accomplish this at no risk to himself then there is no restraint upon a person of bad faith who may drain the energy, attention, and will of government officials at little or no cost to himself but at great expense and loss to the body politic.

Neither party having cited authority directly on point nor any persuasive authority by way of dictum or scholarly comment, the Court concludes that when Bivens actions against federal officials are commenced and prosecuted in bad faith, the defendants may recover their reasonable counsel fees expended. Where the defense is provided the defendants at the expense of the United States, the United States may recover such counsel fees.

To this end, the parties may engage in discovery on the question of the amount of reasonable counsel fees for a period of forty-five days from the entry hereof. Ten days after termination of discovery, defendants shall file their claim and supporting brief. Plaintiff shall respond within ten days thereafter. Defendants may rebut within three days thereafter.

And it is so ORDERED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 11984: 11985: 21986: 119832026peak 1985 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Garrett v. City of Bloomington478 N.E.2d 89 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)
  2. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States4 Cl. Ct. 762 (Ct. Cl. 1984)
  3. Campana v. Muir615 F. Supp. 871 (M.D. Penn. 1985)
  4. Odbert v. United States576 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1983)
  5. Campana v. Muir786 F.2d 188 (3d Cir. 1986)

Most recent

  1. Campana v. Muir786 F.2d 188 (3d Cir. 1986)
  2. Campana v. Muir615 F. Supp. 871 (M.D. Penn. 1985)
  3. Garrett v. City of Bloomington478 N.E.2d 89 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)
  4. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States4 Cl. Ct. 762 (Ct. Cl. 1984)
  5. Odbert v. United States576 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975) 4,091

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list