Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees

Public Court Documents
March 20, 2000

Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees preview

6 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, 2000. e42fabcb-e10e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ca41a61e-a06e-44ad-92fc-8481f3c5f7ce/plaintiffs-motion-for-attorneys-fees. Accessed May 14, 2025.

    Copied!

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4:96-CV-104-BO(3) IN j | EF D 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., ) in; = 
Plaintiffs, ) doris 

LAVID WW Danie 

) US Dist EL CLERK v. ) B) “COURT, epne 
) 5 DEP. Cregg 

JAMES B. HUNT, in his official capacity ) 

as Governor of the State of North Carolina, ) 

ct al., ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

State Defendants, ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

) 
and ) 

) 
ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., ) 

Defendant-Intervenors. ) 

) 
  

Plaintiffs respectfully move for appropriate attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 for 

the services of their attorneys in this action and further move that the determination of the 

entitlement to fees and the computation thereof be deferred until a later time after the ments of 

plaintiffs’ claim have been finally adjudicated and after the attorneys for the various parties have 

an adequate opportunity for discussion of the services provided and time expended and for 

seeking a settlement of this claim. 

In support of their motion plaintiffs show: 

|) This litigation was commenced in July, 1996, and after a hearing was stayed until 

October, 1997. 

2) In March, 1998 a hearing took place on motions for summary judgment made by the 

plaintiffs and by the defendants. 

60d Syp:¢1 00. OC Jel $9.991.616: xe 4 LIT WIAs 0H 

 



wr pA SL Ss AG A ———— “ PR, . Vos pre 

  

3) After summary judgment had been entered which enjoined the use of the 1997 

Redistricting Plan, and after stay of that injunction had been denied, a hearing took place 

concerning a remedial plan. 

4) An appeal was taken by the defendants to the Supreme Court, which noted probable 

jurisdiction, received briefs, heard oral argument on January 21, 1999, and then reversed the 

summary judgment and remanded the case for trial. 

5) Extensive discovery took place during September and October, 1999, which was 

followed by trial on November 29, 1999 through December 1, 1999. 

6) On March 7, 2000, the District Court entered an Order and Opinion holding the 

Twelfth District unconstitutional and enjoining its use for the year 2000 primaries and elections. 

7) After defendants had applied for a stay and plaintiffs had responded thereto, the 

District Court denied a stay but the Supreme Court then granted a stay pending completion of an 

appeal by defendants and defendant-intervenors. 

8) In providing to plaintiffs the legal services necessary to achieve a favorable result, their 

attorneys have expended great amounts of time and effort. Robinson O. Everett has been the 

lead attorney since the action was commenced in July 1996. Martin B. McGee has performed 

extensive legal services for plaintiffs after the dissolution of the stay occurred in October 1997 

and the filing of an amended complaint through the summary judgment and its appeal to the 

Supreme Court in 1998 and 1999, and thereafter through the discovery and trial in 1999. 

Douglas Markham participated in the discovery period and trial from August through December, 

1999. Seth Neyhart participated in the preparation for discovery, discovery and trial from June, 

1999 through December, 1999. In addition to these four attorneys, plaintiffs also have had the 

i 

01 °d 9p:C1 00. OC Je 9.991.616: XE 117 W155 ag Ji 

 



  

benefit of the legal services of Robert Popper, Esquire, two student paralegals--Julie Niemeyer 

and Jamie Davenport--and technical and secretarial assistants. 

9) In the Shaw litigation when Robinson O. Everett was lead counsel for the plaintiffs, he 

and Deputy Attorney General Speas discussed and settled the issue of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, 

which did not have to be adjudicated by the District Court; and they have already informally 

discussed delaying the matter of plaintiffs’ attorneys fees by consent until a later time after the 

Supreme Court of the United States has disposed of the appeal pending before it. 

10) From the discussion between plaintiffs’ attomey Everett and Deputy Attorney 

General Speas, it appears that, subject to reservation of defendants’ rights to dispute the 

entitlement to and amount of attorneys fees for plaintiffs, defendants will consent to this motion 

which seeks to allow plaintiffs to preserve whatever rights they might otherwise have to receive 

attorneys’ fees without requiring further documentation by plaintiffs at this time. 

Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray that they be allowed to preserve any right they 

would otherwise have to receive attorneys’ fees without filing any further specification or 

documentation of attorneys’ fees at this time and that, if after discussion between the attorneys 

for the parties no agreement can be reached, this court shall enter into such Order as it deems 

appropriate with respect to establishing attorneys’ fees. 

11d 9:1 00. OZ Jel £9.991.616: Xe 117 WI 3a% 90 I 13 Ns 

 



Respectfully submitted this 20™ day of March, 

  

Ai). 
Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

N.C. State Bar No.: 1385 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 
P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

Telephone: (919)-682-5691 

  

Williams, Boger, Grady, Davis & Tuttle, P.A. 

by: 
  

Martin B. McGee 

State Bar No.: 22198 

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 
P.O. Box 810 

Concord, NC 28026-0810 

Telephone: (704)-782-1173 

  

Douglas E. Markham 

Texas State Bar No. 12986975 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

333 Clay Suite 4510 

Post Office Box 130923 
Houston, TX 77219-0923 

Telephone: (713) 655-8700 
Facsimile: (713) 655-870] 

ld ap:Z1 00. OC JEW 9.991.616: Xe 117 WI 5dS an Jy 

 



o © te @ 
sod A. Yloyln ts 
Seth A. Nevhart 
Wisconsin State Bar Ns 1035049 

N7983 Town Hall Road 
Eldorado, WI 54932 

Telephone: (920) 872-2643 

  

  
  
  

Robert Popper 

Law Office of Neil Brickman 

630 3" Ave., 21% Floor 
New York, NY 10017 

¢1°d ap:Z1 00. OZ JEW 9.991.616: <k 1171 W1380%5 Si TN 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that [ have this day served the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees by hand delivery to the following addresses: 

Tiare Smiley 
North Carolina Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 629 
Raleigh, NC 27602 

Mr. Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein Wallas, Adkins, Gresham, Sumter, P.A., 
312 W. Franklin St. 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

This the 20" day of March, 2000. 

  

AL 
Robinson O. Everett 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

    
  

F1°d ap:Z1 00. OC EW 9991616: XE 117 WBIJ3d4S 9d IN

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top