Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CLARK v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF NEPTUNE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


November 9, 1995

DAVID C. CLARK, Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE, et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: WOLFSON

MEMORANDUM

 WOLFSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 Presently before the Court is the motion by plaintiff, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, seeking attorneys' fees for legal services provided both in defending plaintiff in a state administrative tenure proceeding and in prosecuting plaintiff's § 1983 case. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Following briefing and oral argument on July 26, 1995, the Court directed plaintiff's counsel to adjust the attorney's fees sought and resubmit their request for fees accordingly. Subsequently, the Court received moving, opposition, and reply papers. This matter is being considered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. For the following reasons, plaintiff is awarded $ 69,346.11 in fees *fn1" and $ 2,219.74 in costs, *fn2" totalling $ 71,565.85, to be paid by defendant, the Neptune Township Board of Education ("Board").

 Background

 Plaintiff is a high school teacher employed by the Board. Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action against the Board, Robert McEwan, Harry Smith, Gilmon Brooks, Joanne Collins, Michael Fornino, Dominic Loperfido, Frances Taylor, Gail Taylor, and Maureen Weber, all of whom are voting members of the Board, as well as against Michael T. Lake, Superintendent of Schools for the Neptune Township Public School System. His complaint alleged that defendants had violated his first and fourteenth amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

 The allegations in the complaint arose out of the Board's termination of plaintiff based upon his statements, made on January 30, 1992, during a radio talk show. During this radio talk show, plaintiff discussed, among other things, his disapproval of the high school's curriculum which required the teaching of African literature in his American Literature class during "Black History Month." Plaintiff's Complaint at P 7.

 On January 31, 1992, defendants suspended plaintiff from teaching, and further denied plaintiff salary increments. On February 20, 1992, the Board initiated a state administrative tenure proceeding to terminate plaintiff's employment by filing charges, pursuant to the New Jersey Tenure Employees' Hearing Law, N.J.S.A. § 18A: 6-10, et seq., with the New Jersey Commissioner of Education. *fn3" Plaintiff's Complaint at PP 15-16. The charges against plaintiff were that he had engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher. Plaintiff's counsel represented plaintiff during the tenure proceedings, and challenged the Board's denial of plaintiff's salary increments. Certification of Steven R. Cohen at P 4. During the tenure proceedings, plaintiff defended on the grounds that defendants had violated his first amendment rights by instituting the tenure proceedings against him. Plaintiff further claimed that his due process rights had been violated because the Commissioner of Education, the official to whom appeals from the administrative law judge's decision would be taken, was biased in favor of defendants. This contention was based upon a letter issued by the Commissioner which plaintiff claimed contained ex parte information supplied by defendants. Certification of Steven R. Cohen at p. 4, n.1; p. 5, n.2; see also Reply Certification of Steven R. Cohen at P 3. On March 8, 1994, plaintiff filed the complaint in this action.

 On May 23, 1994, the administrative law judge who presided over the tenure proceedings granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the tenure charges, finding that defendants had violated plaintiff's first amendment rights. The administrative law judge ordered the reinstatement of plaintiff, and awarded back pay and the withheld salary increments. Certification of Steven R. Cohen at P 6.

 Two appeals ensued. On June 14, 1994, the Board filed exceptions to the administrative law judge's decision with the Commissioner of Education. *fn4" On August 23, 1994, the Commissioner rejected the Board's contentions, and adopted the decision of the administrative law judge. Certification of Steven R. Cohen at P 7. The Board then appealed the decision of the Commissioner to the New Jersey State Board of Education, and on January 4, 1995, the State Board affirmed the decisions of the administrative law judge and of the Commissioner. Certification of Steven R. Cohen at P 8.

  On January 20, 1995, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which plaintiff agreed to dismiss his complaint in this action and the Board agreed to pay plaintiff $ 43,000 in compensatory damages and $ 16,518 in back pay. The parties further agreed that plaintiff would submit a claim for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Certification of Steven R. Cohen at P 10.

 On April 12, 1995, plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with both the filing of the § 1983 complaint and the defense of plaintiff in the tenure proceedings, seeking a total of $ 106,402.38. *fn5" See Plaintiff's April 12, 1995 Letter Brief. The Board opposed, contending that plaintiff was only entitled to fees in the amount of $ 13,192.01. The Board did not contest the reasonableness of plaintiff's counsel's hourly rates, *fn6" and further, acknowledged that plaintiff was entitled to recover some of the fees requested inasmuch as plaintiff was the prevailing party under the settlement. The Board, however, argued that plaintiff was not entitled under § 1988 to fees for legal services rendered in connection with the state administrative tenure proceedings. In support of its claim, the Board maintained that the state proceedings had been "optional," and as such, the burden was upon plaintiff to demonstrate that the services rendered in connection with these proceedings were "useful and of a type ordinarily necessary" to advance plaintiff's § 1983 suit, as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Webb v. Dyer County Board of Educ., 471 U.S. 234, 85 L. Ed. 2d 233, 105 S. Ct. 1923 (1985). The Board contended that plaintiff had failed to meet this burden. Defendant's May 15, 1995 Letter Brief at 2. In reply, plaintiff asserted that the proceedings had not been optional, or, alternatively, that the work performed had been both useful and ordinarily necessary to further plaintiff's civil rights litigation. Plaintiff's May 30, 1995 Letter Brief.

 On July 26, 1995, the Court heard oral arguments on plaintiff's motion. The Court ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to the fees attributable to plaintiff's tenure proceeding defense which challenged the Commissioner's partiality because this defense was unrelated to plaintiff's civil rights litigation. In addition, the Court informed the parties that a discrete portion of the legal services rendered in the tenure proceedings would be allowed pursuant to Webb. Indeed, the parties and the Court had recognized the nexus between the administrative proceedings and this civil rights litigation by agreeing to stay this federal case until the administrative matter was concluded. The parties were prescient, since the conclusion of the administrative matter did result in a speedy settlement of this case. That connection, did not, however, transform the entire proceeding into a compensable event for attorney's fees under § 1988. Thus, the Court instructed plaintiff's counsel to adjust the total amount of attorney's fees accordingly. The Court further instructed plaintiff's counsel to substantiate their fee application by explaining how the services for which plaintiff's counsel sought fees had, in fact, advanced plaintiff's civil rights litigation. As guidance, the Court directed the parties' attention to Stacy v. Stroud, 845 F. Supp. 1135, 1143 (S.D.W. Va. 1993), in which the court held that fees incurred in defending a driving-under-the-influence charge were compensable under § 1988. This Court favorably noted that the Stacy decision expressly took into consideration the attorney's selectivity in requesting fees for the work performed. Id.

 On August 4, 1995, plaintiff's counsel submitted a copy of the adjustments made to the attorney's fees in accordance with the Court's July 26, 1995 directive. The adjustments, which related only to plaintiff's partiality defense in the tenure proceedings, totalled $ 11,024.65. See Plaintiff's September 12, 1995 Letter Brief. By letter brief dated September 8, 1995, the Board opposed a number of the fees sought. It argued that plaintiff had again failed to establish that the services rendered in the tenure proceedings were useful and necessary to plaintiff's civil rights litigation. It further maintained that plaintiff had included as adjustments a number of deductions which plaintiff had previously subtracted in its billing discretion, and that these adjustments were therefore duplicative. In a reply letter dated September 12, 1995, plaintiff argued that the services to which defendant pointed were indeed relevant to the civil rights litigation, and that defendant's claim regarding plaintiff's duplicative adjustments was without merit.

 Thus, plaintiff now seeks a total of $ 96,795.23 in attorney's fees. *fn7" Because defendant does not contest the hourly rates suggested by plaintiff, or the number of hours which plaintiff claims were expended in filing his civil rights complaint, see Defendant's May 15, 1995 Letter Brief at 7, the Court will address only defendant's specific objections, as set forth in its September 8, 1995 letter brief, to plaintiff's requests for fees relating to work performed during the tenure proceedings.

 Discussion

 The question presented is whether plaintiff's counsel are entitled, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), to attorney's fees for legal services rendered in connection with the state administrative tenure proceedings instituted against plaintiff by the Board. Section 1988(b) provides:

 

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 [ 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [ 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [ 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.

 Thus, § 1988 allows a court to award attorney's fees only for services rendered during "proceedings to enforce" a limited number of federal statutes. Barrow v. Falck, 977 F.2d 1100, 1104 (7th Cir. 1992). "The time that is compensable under § 1988 is that 'reasonably expended on the litiqation.'" Webb v. Board of Educ. of Dyer Co., 471 U.S. 234, 242, 85 L. Ed. 2d 233, 105 S. Ct. 1923 (1985) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983)) (emphasis in original). It is incumbent upon the prevailing party to submit a request for legal fees which permits the court to determine which fees were incurred in pursuing the federal litigation. Webb, 471 U.S. at 242; Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 782 (11th Cir. 1994).

 In its Webb decision, the Supreme Court enunciated a further limitation on the recovery of attorney's fees under § 1988. In Webb, the Court held that the district court had acted well within the bounds of its discretion in denying a request for fees under § 1988 for time expended pursuing optional administrative remedies prior to the institution of the § 1983 suit. Webb, 471 U.S. at 244. In so holding, the Court explained that a § 1983 plaintiff is generally not entitled to claim attorney's fees for services rendered during administrative proceedings because such proceedings are not "any part of the proceedings to enforce § 1983." Id. at 241. This result obtains because a § 1983 plaintiff is not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing a § 1983 suit. Id.

 The Court, however, carved out an exception where the plaintiff establishes that a "discrete portion of the work product from the administrative proceeding was work that was both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the civil rights litigation to the stage it reached before the settlement." Id. at 243; see also North Carolina Dep't of Transp. v. Crest Street Community Council, Inc., 479 U.S. 6, 15, 93 L. Ed. 2d 188, 107 S. Ct. 336 (1986). The Third Circuit, in Gulfstream III Associates, Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 414 (3d Cir. 1993), elaborated upon the showing that a party must make to be entitled to an award of attorney's fees for services rendered during a separate, but related, litigation. The court held that "if the plaintiff can prove that the fees and expenses incurred in the other litigation resulted in work product that was actually utilized in the instant litigation, [and] that the time spent on the other litigation was 'inextricably linked' to the issues raised in the present litigation, . . ., then the district court may include those fees and expenses in its fee award." Gulfstream, 995 F.2d at 420 (quoting Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 459, 474 (3d Cir. 1992) (upholding fee award's inclusion of hours spent in litigating and in appealing a labor arbitration hearing which was related to § 1983 suit)). In sum, compensation for attorney's fees under § 1988 for work performed in support of an optional administrative proceeding which precedes the filing of a § 1983 suit is the exception and not the rule. The burden is upon the prevailing party to establish that the services for which it seeks fees actually advanced the civil rights litigation.

 In this case, plaintiff's counsel argue, in the most conclusory of terms, that every task which they performed while defending plaintiff during the administrative proceeding and the subsequent appeals was necessary to plaintiff's civil right litigation, and thus, is compensable. They essentially contend that, but for their work during the tenure proceeding, there would not have been a settlement of this § 1983 suit. Plaintiff's September 12, 1995 Reply Letter Brief at 5.

 This Court, however, previously considered this contention at oral argument. And, in response to the very same argument, the Court expressly instructed counsel to resubmit their request for fees, admonishing them that only a "discrete" portion of the services rendered during the administrative proceedings would be compensable under Webb. The Court further reminded counsel that, to be entitled to attorney's fees under § 1988, it was incumbent upon them to establish a link between the services rendered during the tenure proceedings and plaintiff's § 1983 suit. The Court finds that plaintiff's counsel have failed to meet this burden. Plaintiff's counsel's billing statement suffers from two fundamental flaws. First, the billing statement is over-inclusive, embracing all services which counsel performed prior to the filing of the civil rights complaint, except for those services relating to plaintiff's bias defense.

 Second, the billing statement, in many instances, inadequately describes the nature of the services performed, and the amount of time spent performing each of the services. For example, plaintiff seeks compensation for the following services performed on February 12, 1992:

 

SRC intra-office conferences with JSS and KS Review text of statement on radio show Telephone call from Association President

 

and client Telephone call from Brian Cige, Esq.

 2.75 hours $ 577.50

 Plaintiff's April 12, 1995 Letter Brief, Exhibit 1 at 1.

 While counsel's review of plaintiff's statement on the radio show was certainly relevant to plaintiff's § 1983 suit, plaintiff's counsel have failed to set forth the amount of time spent reviewing the statement. Instead, they have lumped it together with other services, providing a total amount of hours for all services performed on that particular day by that attorney. It would be not only impossible, but inappropriate, for this Court to attempt to estimate the amount of time spent reviewing this statement, or the time spent on any of other services listed in the entry.

 In addition, the entries regarding the intra-office conference and telephone calls fail to describe what was discussed. In accordance with Webb, the Court is unwilling to assume that every single phone call and every conference was inextricably linked to plaintiff's civil rights litigation. Hence, the Court rules that the fees sought for services performed on February 12, 1992, are non-compensable. *fn8" See Loranger, 10 F.3d at 782 (district court properly denied request for compensation for time expended independent of the federal litigation where 'timesheets, in some instances, grouped together . . . claimed legal services, thereby making it difficult to determine the exact number of hours undertaken, vis-a-vis other (non-allowable) discrete proceedings. . . ."); Finkelstein v. Bergna, 804 F. Supp. 1235, 1260 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (where it was impossible to determine what percentage of work performed was compensable under Webb, attorney's fees properly denied).

 Plaintiff's counsel, however, contend that they should be compensated for the services enumerated in this entry because "the time spent for all of these services . . . was necessary and did advance the civil rights litigation." Plaintiff's September 12, 1995 Letter Brief at 2. This explanation, however, is conclusory; it fails to provide a "nexus between the work in the disciplinary proceeding for which fees were requested and the demands of the district court action. . . ." Cullen v. Fliegner, 18 F.3d 96, 106 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 130 L. Ed. 2d 393, 115 S. Ct. 480 (1994).

 Plaintiff's counsel rely heavily upon Cullen in support of their contentions, but that reliance is misplaced. In Cullen, the Second Circuit held that the lower court had properly awarded fees incurred during a disciplinary proceeding where counsel had sought only a "'discrete portion' of the fees so incurred." Id. (citation omitted). Here, plaintiff's counsel seek fees for all of the services rendered during the tenure proceedings. The only adjustments which plaintiff's counsel made to the fees sought were to those fees relating to plaintiff's defense challenging the partiality of the Commissioner. Those adjustments were not enough. Unlike in Cullen, the services for which plaintiff's counsel seek fees are anything but "discrete" portions of the work performed; rather, counsel seek fees for the entirety of the services rendered by them prior to the filing of plaintiff's civil rights complaint.

 Many of plaintiff's counsel's entries suffer from the same deficiencies as the ones discussed above with respect to the February 12, 1992 entry. Accordingly, the Court finds that the fees listed on Appendix A to this opinion are non-compensable under § 1988. The Court takes into consideration both those fees reduced or eliminated by counsel on April 11, 1995, in their billing discretion, and those fees reduced or eliminated by counsel on July 26, 1995, in accordance with this Court's directive. The fees listed on Appendix A include both those to which defendant objected, and those which the Court, consistent with the above analysis, finds non-compensable. Because defendant has failed to object to fees charged for services performed after March, 1994, the Court will allow them. The Court finds that the fees listed on Appendix B, in the amount of $ 66,901.65, are compensable. The Court further awards $ 2444.46 in fees for the work performed on the fee application, *fn9" and $ 2,219.74 in costs, as set forth in Appendix C. The Court notes that defendant's remaining argument regarding plaintiff's counsel's duplication of adjustments is without merit.

 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to § 1988 is allowed in the amount of $ 71,565.85. An appropriate Order shall follow.

 ORDER

 This matter having been opened to the Court by Steven R. Cohen, Esq., of Selikoff & Cohen, counsel for plaintiff, David C. Clark, seeking attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the Court having considered the moving papers, and the opposition thereto, and having set forth its reasoning in a Memorandum entered upon this date, this matter having been considered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, and for good cause shown,

 IT IS on this 9th day of November, 1995,

 ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is granted in the amount of $ 69,346.11 and costs in the amount of $ 2,219.74.

 Freda L. Wolfson

 United States Magistrate Judge APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Date Hours Fees 2/12/92 SRC Intra-office conferences with JSS and KS; Review text of statement on radio show; Telephone call from Association President and client; Telephone call to Brian Cige, Esq. .75 $ 577.50 2/13/92 SRC Telephone call from Stephen Hunter, Esq. and Association President; Telephone call to Association President and ACLU 4.00 Attorney Original Fee: $ 840.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by 2.50 hours or $ 525.00 $ 315.00 2/14/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President regarding additional .50 $ 105.00 information 2/18/92 SRC Telephone call to client .75 Original Fee: $ 157.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .50 hours or $ 105.00 $ 52.50 2/21/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President regarding tenure charges .25 $ 52.50 3/3/92 SRC Review additional materials received from client 2.50 $ 525.00 SRC Intra-office conference with JSS regarding strategy .25 $ 52.50 3/4/92 SRC Legal Research; Telephone call to Association President 5.00 $ 1050.00 TJK Legal Research -- process under NJSA 18A:6-11 (argument that school board not a neutral fact 1.50 $ 112.50 finder) 3/5/92 SRC Draft statement of position; Legal research; Telephone call to Association President and 5.75 $ 1207.50 client 3/6/92 SRC Memo to file; Draft revision to answer .50 $ 105.00 3/11/92 SRC Review correspondence from Association Telephone call to Association Regarding needed 1.00 $ 210.00 information -- updates 3/19/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 4/11/92 by .18 hours or $ 37.80 $ 67.20 SRC Telephone call from client .25 $ 52.20 3/24/92 SRC Review correspondence from Assocation and Commissioner of Education Telephone call to Commissioner's office; Preperation of trial notebook with 5.75 KCC Original Fee: $ 1207.50 Reduced on 7/26/96 by .75 hours or $ 157.50 $ 1050.00 3/25/92 SRC Telephone call from client .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 hours or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 3/27/92 KCC File Review; Correspondence to Association President 2.25 $ 168.75 SRC Telephone call from Jean Jackson Asbury Park Press .25 $ 52.50 3/30/92 SRC Review correspondence from client .25 $ 52.50 4/1/92 SRC Draft Answer; Telephone call to Commissioner's Office, Board attorney and client 6.00 Original Fee: $ 1260.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .50 or $ 105.00; Reduced 7/26/95 by .75 or $157.50 $ 997.50 4/2/92 SRC Telephone conference call with client regarding answer 1.25 Original Fee: $ 262.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .25 or $ 52.50 $ 210.00 4/3/92 SRC Draft revisions to answer; Legal Research 1.25 Original Fee: $ 262.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 157.50 4/10/92 SRC Telephone call to Association President .25 $ 52.50 SRC Review correspondence from Commissioner; Telephone call to Commissioner and client Correspondence to Unemployment; Review Unemployment decision; File 1.50 Review Original Fee: $ 315.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 210.00 4/13/92 SRC Review correspondence from client .25 $ 52.50 4/15/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President; Review correspondence from Commissioner .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .25 or $ 52.50 $ 52.50 4/16/92 SRC Review correspondence from .25 $ 52.50 SRC Association Telephone call client .25 $ 52.50 4/23/92 SRC Legal research; Review correspondence from client; 1.00 Telephone call to client Original Fee: $ 210.00 Reduced on on 4/11/95 by .25 or $ 52.50 $ 157.50 4/24/92 SRC Telephone call to Steven Hunter Esq.; Review correspondence from Association regarding interview with NJEA unit members .50 $ 105.00 4/28/92 SRC Review correspondence from client and Association 1.50 $ 315.00 4/29/92 SRC Intra-office conference with KCC regarding preparation of trial note-book; Telephone call from Association president; Telephone Call to Association President 2.00 $ 420.00 SRC Telephone call from Association President .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 SRC Review correspondence from OAL .25 $ 52.50 5/28/92 SRC Review correspondence from OAL; Correspondence to client and Association .50 $ 105.00 5/29/92 SRC Review transcript of 4/29/92; Telephone call to client 1.75 $ 367.50 6/9/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .18 or $ 37.80 $ 67.20 6/15/92 SRC Telephone call to client .25 $ 52.50 6/23/92 SRC Review documents received from Association; Telephone call to client regarding material received; Telephone conference with client and Association president regarding miscellaneous items .75 $ 157.50 7/2/92 SRC Telephone call from client .25 $ 52.50 7/10/92 SRC Review material received from Association .50 $ 105.00 7/13/92 SRC File Review; Memo to file; Review correspondence .75 $ 157.50 7/17/92 SRC Memo to file .25 $ 52.50 7/24/92 SRC Review correspondence from OAL; Review pre-hearing order from ALJ; Correspondence to client .75 $ 157.50 8/13/92 SRC Telephone call to client; memo to file .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .18 or $ 37.80 $ 67.20 SRC Telephone call from Association president .25 $ 52.20 8/27/82 SRC Review material received from 1.25 $ 262.50 Association 9/15/93 SRC Memo to file; Review Review from correspondence client .75 $ 157.50 9/16/92 SRC Review correspondence from Association .25 $ 52.50 9/21/92 SRC Telephone call from Association .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .25 or $ 52.50 $ 52.50 10/9/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President .25 $ 52.50 SRC Review correspondence from OAL .25 $ 52.50 10/15/92 SRC Intra-office conference regarding issues in case; Telephone call from .75 $ 157.50 10/27/92 SRC Association Telephone call from Association President .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 10/29/92 SRC Intra-office conference with KCC regarding things needed to be done on file; Review pre-hearing order; Correspondence to client 1.50 Original Fee: $ 315.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .75 or $ 157.50 $ 157.50 10/30/92 SRC Review correspondence from OAL .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 11/10/92 SRC Review order of ALJ; Telephone call from James Hundley, Esq. .50 $ 105.00 11/16/92 SRC Telephone call from client regarding ALJ order .25 $ 52.50 11/20/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 11/23/92 SRC Review correspondence from ALJ .25 $ 52.50 11/24/92 SRC Review correspondence from DAG: Review FAX from Association .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .25 or $ 52.50 $ 52.50 11/25/92 MCD Legal research -- due process issues 2.00 $ 350.00 11/30/92 SRC Review correspondence from ALJ and Association .50 $ 105.00 12/07/92 MCD Preparation of factual statement; File Review; Preparation for hearing scheduled for 12/18/92 1.00 Original Fee: $ 175.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .75 or $ 131.25 $ 43.75 12/9/92 SRC Telephone to client and Association president .50 $ 105.00 12/14/92 SRC Preparation for oral argument; Telephone conference call with ALJ and Board Attorney; Telephone call from Board Attorney regarding miscellaneous issues in case 2.50 Original Fee: $ 525.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 1.00 or $ 210.00 $ 315.00 12/16/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .25 or $ 52.50 $ 52.50 12/18/92 SRC Appearance at oral argument (including travel); Review documents from DAG Powers; Telephone call to Association President; Correspondence to DAG Powers 6.00 Original Fee: $ 1260.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by 1.75 or $ 367.50 $ 892.50 1/4/93 MCD File review; Preparation for deposition 2.00 Original Fee: $ 350.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 87.50 $ 262.50 1/6/93 SRC Preparation for deposition of Lake and Eaton *fn10" 1.75 Original Fee: $ 367.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 157.50 1/7/93 SRC Preparation for deposition; Appearance at deposition of Michael Lake and Patricia Eaton, Monmouth County Super- intendent's office (including travel) 7.00 Original Fee: $ 1470.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by 1.50 or $ 315.00 $ 1155.00 1/8/93 SRC Preparation for deposition; Telephone call from client 1.75 Original Fee: $ 367.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by 1.50 or $ 315.00 $ 52.50 1/14/93 SRC Memo to file .25 $ 52.50 1/21/93 SRC Telephone call from client regarding press article and status .25 $ 52.50 1/28/93 SRC review correspondence from Association president; Telephone call from Association .50 $ 105.00 2/8/93 SRC Review correspondence from Association .25 $ 52.50 SRC Review transcript of statement of Michael Mixon; Telephone call from client; Telephone call to client regarding statement 1.00 $ 210.00 SRC Telephone call from client regarding contact from Mixon; Telephone call to Association president .50 $ 105.00 2/10/93 SRC Telephone call from client regarding new information pertaining to case .25 $ 52.50 2/17/93 SRC Telephone call from Association President regarding new information .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 4/15/93 SRC Telephone call from client .25 $ 52.50 4/23/93 SRC Memo to file; Telephone call from Audrey Anderson, Esq,; Telephone call to client .50 $ 105.00 5/3/93 MCD Telephone conference with James Hundley, Esq. 1.00 Original Fee: $ 175.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .50 or $ 87.50 $ 87.50 5/24/93 SRC Review correspondence with Janet Daymude, Esq. .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 6/3/93 SRC Intra-office conference with MCD regarding status of discovery, affirmative defense #1 and briefing; Telephone conference call with ALJ, DAG, and Board attorney .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .25 or $ 52.50 $ 52.50 6/14/93 SRC Telephone call from Association president .25 $ 52.50 6/23/93 SRC Memo to file; Telephone call to client and James Hundley, Esq. .50 $ 105.00 7/7/93 MCD Telephone call to Judge Law, James Hundley, Esq., and DAG Powers .50 Original Fee: $ 87.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .25 or $ 43.75 $ 43.75 7/8/93 KCC Preparation of exhibits for brief 2.00 Original Fee: $ 150.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by 1.25 or $ 93.75 $ 56.25 7/16/93 SRC telephone call from Association President regarding status .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 7/26/93 SRC Telephone call to Association President .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 $ 33.60 8/31/93 SRC Telephone call from Association president .25 $ 52.50 9/14/93 SRC Review correspondence from ABC-TV regarding requested video-tape; correspondence to Association president .50 $ 105.00 9/20/93 SRC Telephone call from Association President .24 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 9/23/93 SRC Review correspondence from Association regarding Boardresolution .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 9/29/93 SRC Review correspondence from client .25 $ 52.50 10/19/93 SRC Telephone call from client regarding miscellaneous issues .25 $ 52.50 10/29/93 SRC Memo to file; Telephone call to Assocation president; Telephone call to .50 $ 105.00 client 11/1/93 SRC File review; Correspondence to client regarding salary adjustment; Correspondence to Board Secretary 1.00 $ 210.00 11/16/93 MCD Telephone call to Judge Law and James Hundley, Esq. .50 $ 87.50 11/17/93 MCD Telephone call from James Hundley, Esq.; Telephone call to DAG Powers .64 Original Fee: $ 112.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .32 or $ 56.00 $ 56.00 11/18/93 MCD Telephone call to Judge Law's secretary .32 $ 56.00 11/19/93 MCD Correspondence to Judge Law .32 $ 56.00 12/6/93 MCD Telephone call to Judge Law and James Hundley, Esq. .50 $ 87.50 12/8/93 SRC Office conference with client .75 $ 157.50 12/9/93 SRC Memo to file; Telephone call to Peter Tramm .25 $ 52.50 12/17/93 SRC Review correspondence from ALJ .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $18.90 $ 33.60 12/18/93 SRC Review correspondence from Commissioner .25 Original Fee: $ 52.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .09 or $ 18.90 $ 33.60 12/20/93 SRC Telephone call from client; Correspondence to client .50 $ 105.00 1/14/94 SRC Telephone call from Association President regarding Board's refusal to verity employment .25 $ 52.50 MCD Correspondence to Association president .25 $ 43.75 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Date Hours Fee 2/12/92 JSS Legal research .50 $ 105.00 KAS Legal Research -- constitutional free speech issues .75 $ 120.00 2/27/92 SRC Outside conference with client and Association President at NJEA headquarters, Neptune, NJ (including travel) regarding tenure charges 12.25 $ 2572.50 3/18/92 SRC Telephone call from Association President regarding various matters including discovery, depositions etc. .50 Original Fee: $ 105.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .18 or $ 37.80 $ 67.20 4/8/92 SRC Outside conference with client at NJEA headquarters, Neptune, NJ (including travel) 7.50 $ 1575.00 4/28/93 SRC Legal research -- tenure case 2.50 $ 525.00 5/5/92 CHS File review; intra-office conference with SRC regarding preparation of discovery requests Draft discovery requests 5.75 Original Fee: $ 1006.25 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .75 or $ 131.25 $ 875.00 5/6/92 CHS File review; Draft discovery requests 5.50 $ 962.50 5/8/92 SRC Legal research 2.00 Original Fee: $ 420.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 315.00 SRC Intra-office conference with CHS regarding discovery .50 $ 105.00 CHS Draft and revise discovery requests; file review 3.50 Original Fee: $ 612.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .50 or $ 87.50 $ 525.00 5/11/92 CHS Intra-office conference with SRC; Draft and revise discovery requests 3.00 $ 525.00 6/9/92 SRC review client's responses to student's transcribed statements; review client's list of potential witnesses .75 $ 157.50 7/6/92 SRC Legal Research -- decision in Caron v. Sylvia .25 $ 52.50 7/9/92 SRC Preparation for pre-hearing conference Telephone call from Board regarding conference; telephone calls to client regarding hearing, miscellaneous 1.25 $ 262.50 items 7/26/92 SRC Continued preparation for pre- hearing conference; Telephone pre-hearing conference 3.00 Original Fee: $ 630.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by 2.00 or $ 420.00 $ 210.00 8/31/92 KAS Intra-office conference regarding 2nd Circuit decision upholding 1st amendment rights of faculty member .25 $ 40.00 9/4/92 SRC legal Research -- opinion of 2nd circuit in Levin v. Harleston; Review correspondence from Association regarding curriculum .50 $ 105.00 9/17/92 SRC review extensive discovery submitted by Board, including transcripts; Telephone call to Association President 7.00 $ 1470.00 9/22/92 SRC Preparation for pre-hearing conference (second); telephone pre-hearing conference 2.25 $ 472.50 10/1/92 SRC Preparation for pre-hearing conference (third); telephone pre-hearing conference; Correspondence to Judge Law 1.50 $ 315.00 11/10/92 SRC Intra-office conference with MCD regarding preparation for 12/18/92 oral argument 1.00 Original Fee: $ 210.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 105.00 12/7/92 MCD Legal research; draft brief 2.00 Original Fee: $ 350.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .75 or $ 131.25 $ 218.75 12/9/92 MCD Preparation and draft brief 1.50 $ 262.50 12/10/92 MCD Preparation and draft brief 2.00 Original Fee: $350.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .75 or $ 131.25 $ 218.75 12/11/92 MCD Legal research; draft brief 2.50 Original Fee: $ 437.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .75 or $ 131.25 $ 306.25 12/14/92 MCD Legal research -- issue of res judicata 1.00 $ 175.00 12/17/92 SRC Preparation for pre-hearing conference; Preparation for oral argument regarding affirmative defense #1 and free speech issue 3.50 Original Fee: $ 735.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by 1.75 or $ 367.50 $ 367.50 12/21/92 JSS Intra-office conference with SRC regarding discovery and strategy 1.25 Original Fee: $ 262.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 157.50 SRC Intra-office conference regarding strategy on first affirmative defense and due process issues, depositions, etc. 1.25 Original Fee: $ 262.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 157.50 1/15/93 MCD Preparation of additional issues to be briefed in support of application to dismiss charges/ violation of constitutional rights 1.00 $ 175.00 1/18/93 MCD Preparation of brief in support of application to dismiss charges/ violation of constitutional rights .50 $ 87.50 KCC Telephone call to NASA and ABC, New Jersey regarding supporting and background information relating to Clark's statement .50 $ 37.50 4/19/93 SRC Legal research -- Holder v. Allentown Memo to file .25 $ 52.50 6/21/93 MCD Preparation and draft brief in support of application to dismiss charges/violation of 1.00 $ 175.00 constitutional rights 6/23/93 MCD Review transcript; Continued pre- paration of brief in support of application to dismiss charges/ violation of constitutional rights .50 $ 87.50 6/24/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting brief 5.00 Original Fee: $ 875.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .75 or $ 131.25 $ 743.75 6/25/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting brief 6.50 Original Fee: $ 1137.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by 1.00 or $ 175.00 $ 962.50 6/28/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting brief 3.50 Original Fee: $ 612.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 87.50 $ 525.00 KCC Legal research -- case for brief .50 $ 37.50 6/29/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting of brief Original Fee: $ 437.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 87.50 $ 350.00 6/30/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting of brief 3.50 Original Fee: $ 612.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 87.50 $ 525.00 7/2/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting of brief 2.00 Original Fee: $ 350.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .25 or $ 43.75 $ 306.25 7/6/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting of brief 5.00 Original Fee: $ 875.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .75 or $ 131.25 $ 743.75 7/7/93 SRC Intra-office conference with MCD; Draft revisions of brief 4.00 Original Fee: $ 840.00 Reduced by 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 735.00 7/9/93 MCD Continued preparation of brief .50 $ 87.50 7/12/93 MCD Continued preparation of brief 1.00 Original Fee: $ 175.00 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .25 or $ 43.75 $ 131.25 7/13/93 SRC Legal research; draft revisions to brief 3.75 Original Fee: $ 787.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 105.00 $ 682.50 MCD Continued research and drafting of brief; intra-office conference with SRC regarding revisions 2.50 Original Fee: $ 437.50 Reduced on 7/26/95 by .50 or $ 87.50 $ 350.00 7/19/93 MCD Legal research on issue to be contained in reply brief; begin drafting of reply brief 1.00 $ 175.00 10/14/93 SRC Telephone call from Association President regarding Board's failure to pay client proper salary .25 $ 52.50 10/26/93 MCD Legal research -- review additional case law on free-speech .32 issue Original Fee: $ 56.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .07 or $ 12.25 $ 43.75 KAS Intra-office conference regarding Trautwein decision; Legal research -- free speech issue .25 $ 40.00 11/11/93 MCD Review brief received from Board attorney 1.00 $ 175.00 11/12/93 MCD Legal Research -- research cases cited by Board 1.00 $ 175.00 11/15/93 MCD Legal Research -- continued research of cited cases .50 $ 87.50 11/16/93 SRC Legal research; Intra-office conference with MCD regarding reply to Board's brief on motion to dismiss; Review Board's brief on motion to dismiss; Telephone call to client regarding status 1.50 $ 315.00 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC regarding Board's brief and case 1.00 law Original Fee: $ 175.00 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .50 or $ 87.50 $ 87.50 11/19/93 MCD Preparation and draft brief in response to that submitted by 2.00 $ 350.00 Board 11/22/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting reply brief to that submitted by Board 1.50 $ 262.50 11/24/93 MCD Preparation and drafting reply brief to that submitted by Board .50 $ 87.50 11/29/93 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC regarding reply to Board's brief; Continued preparation and drafting reply brief to that submitted by Board 1.50 $ 262.50 11/30/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting reply brief to that submitted by Board 1.00 $ 175.00 12/1/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting reply brief to that submitted by Board 2.00 $ 350.00 12/2/93 MCD Continued preparation and drafting reply brief to that submitted by 2.00 $ 350.00 12/3/93 SRC Draft revisions to brief opposing Board Intervenor, Commissioner of 1.25 $ 262.50 Education 12/6/93 SRC Telephone call from Association President regarding information needed for petition of appeal; Draft revisions to petition of 1.00 $ 210.00 appeal SRC Legal research; Draft petition of appeal and affidavit; Telephone call to client regarding information needed 3.75 $ 787.50 12/7/93 SRC Draft revisions to petition of .50 $ 105.00 appeal 12/9/93 MCD Legal research -- case law; Continued preparation and draft brief in reply to that submitted 3.50 by Board Original Fee: $ 612.50 Reduced on 4/11/95 by .75 or $ 131.25 $ 481.25 12/10/93 MCD Continued preparation and draft brief in reply to that submitted by Board 4.50 $ 787.50 12/13/93 SRC Draft revisions to brief in reply to Board's brief .50 $ 105.00 MCD Draft revisions to brief in reply to Board's brief 2.50 $ 437.50 2/24/94 SRC Intra-office conference regarding federal court complaint; Review correspondence; Telephone call to Association 1.00 $ 210.00 2/25/94 MCD Legal Research; Preparation and draft federal court complaint .50 $ 87.50 MCD Intra-office conference regarding federal court complaint .50 $ 87.50 2/28/94 MCD Legal Research -- Section 1983 cases in free speech issues 1.00 $ 175.00 With respect to the billing entries which follow, fees for services followed by the letters "OF" and "AR" were reduced by counsel, in their billing discretion, on April 11, 1995. The amount following the letters "OF" is the original fee which was requested by counsel. The amount following the letters "AR" is the amount which was reduced by counsel in their billing discretion. 03/01/94 MCD Legal Research -- constitutional 2.00 350.00 law -- free speech 03/02/94 SRC Draft revisions to Federal Court .50 105.00 Complaint SRC Intra-office conference with MCD and JSS regarding revisions to Federal .50 105.00 Court complaint JSS Preparation of Federal Court Complaint Intra-office conference with SRC and .50 105.00 MCD 03/03/94 MCD Preparation and draft Federal Court complaint Legal Research -- authorized 2.00 350.00 under "color of law" 03/15/94 JEP Preparation of Summonses .75 56.25 03/22/94 JEP Preparation for service of Federal Court complaint on 12 defendants 1.57 112.50 OF = 117.75; AR = $ 5.25 04/18/94 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC regarding compliance with scheduling .32 43.75 order OF = 56.00; AR = $ 12.25 04/19/94 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC regarding status of case Review Answer received .75 131.25 MCD Telephone call from Association .32 43.75 President OF = 56.00; AR = 12.25 04/20/94 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC regarding discovery .25 43.75 05/06/94 SRC Review correspondence Telephone call from Association .50 105.00 President 05/16/94 MCD Preparation of discovery plan 2.00 OF = 350.00; AR = 43.75 306.25 05/26/94 MCD Review pretrial order and complaince .50 56.00 requirements OF =87.50; AR = 31.50 06/03/94 MCD Telephone call to Association President and client Review ALJ decision 1.00 175.00 06/06/94 SRC Intra-office conference regarding exceptions Review ALJ decision OF 1.00 157.50 = 210.00; AR = $ 52.50 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC and JSS of =175.00 regarding strategy concerning exceptions AR=87.50 1.00 87.50 MCD Review discovery plan .50 87.50 06/07/94 MCD Intra-office conference (with SRC) regarding exceptions 3.00 525.00 MCD Correspondence to Board attorney Intra-office conference regarding joint discovery plan .50 87.50 MCD Telephone call to Board attorney regarding joint discovery plan OF = 56.00; AR =12.25 .32 43.75 06/08/94 SRC Draft revisions to Joint Discovery Plan Telephone call from client .50 105.00 MCD Preparation of exceptions to Commissioner of Education supporting ALJ Decision Correspondence to Commissioner 3.00 525.00 MCD Review completed joint discovery plan Intra-office conference with SRC 1.00 175.00 06/09/94 MCD Preparation and draft exceptions brief supporting ALJ 2.50 437.50 06/10/94 JSS Intra-office conference with SRC and MCD regarding exceptions brief suporting ALJ decision .25 52.50 SRC Intra-office conference regarding issues in brief strategy Review draft of brief in support of ALJ decision Draft revisions to brief 1.25 262.50 MCD Draft revisions to exceptions brief supporting ALJ decision Intra-office conference with JSS and 3.50 612.50 SRC 06/16/94 MCD Legal Research .50 87.50 MCD Review exceptions brief submitted by 1.00 175.00 Board 06/17/94 MCD Telephone call to Bureau of Controversies and Disputes OF=87.50; .50 56.00 AR=31.50 MCD Telephone call to Judge Wolfson and Board attorney OF=262.50; AR=175.00 1.50 87.50 MCD Legal Research Preparation and draft reply to exceptions brief submitted by Board Continued review of exceptions brief filed by Board attorney Intra-office conference with SRC 4.00 700.00 SRC Review reply to exceptions brief submitted by Board Intra-office conference .50 105.00 06/19/94 MCD Continued preparation and drafting of reply to exceptions brief submitted by 4.00 700.00 Board 06/20/94 SRC Intra-office conference regarding reply brief Draft revisions to text of reply .75 157.50 brief MCD Intra-office conference Continued preparation and drafting of reply to exceptions Legal research Correspondence to Bureau of Controversies and Disputes 4.00 700.00 06/23/94 SRC Review correspondence from OAL .25 33.60 OF=52.50; AR=18.90 06/24/94 SRC Telephone call from client OF=105.00; .50 52.50 AR=52.50 MCD File review regarding up-coming .32 56.00 conference 06/27/94 MCD Memo to file regarding research Legal Research -- Trautwein case 1.00 175.00 06/28/94 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC .16 28.00 07/08/94 MCD File Review Intra-office conference regarding issues and upcoming conference with .75 131.25 Judge Wolfson 07/11/94 SRC Appearance at pre-trial conference (including travel) Preparation for pre-trial conference Intra-office conference with MCD Legal Research 3.00 630.00 07/19/94 MCD Preparation and draft proposed order Correspondence to Judge Wolfson 1.00 175.00 07/25/94 MCD Intra-office conference regarding recent 3rd Circuit case Telephone call to Board attorney .50 87.50 MCD Intra-office conference regarding memo from Controversies and Disputes .16 28.00 07/28/94 SRC Review correspondence from Commissioner .25 52.50 07/29/94 MCD Legal Research -- recent 3rd Circuit Decision regarding 1st Amendment issues .75 131.25 MCD Telephone call from Judge Wolfson's .32 43.75 Clerk OF=56.00; AR=12.25 08/02/94 MCD Telephone call to client .25 OF=43.75; AR=15.75 28.00 SRC Telephone call from Association .25 OF=52.50; AR=18.90 33.60 08/03/94 MCD Telephone call to client Correspondence to client .75 131.25 MCD Intra-office conference regarding medical status of client and scheduling of depositions Review correspondence .50 87.50 08/05/94 OF=56.00; AR=12.25 MCD Telephone call from client regarding .32 43.75 depositions MCD Intra=office conference with SRC regarding client's health and .32 56.00 depositions 08/09/94 MCD Legal research -- increment withholding prior to tenure charges .75 131.25 MCD Telephone call to Judge Law Intra-office conference with SRC .50 87.50 08/12/94 SRC Intra-office conference with MCD Review pre-hearing order .50 105.00 08/17/94 SRC Review ALJ order .25 52.50 08/19/94 MCD Telephone call to client .32 56.00 MCD Correspondence to medical providers .32 56.00 08/22/94 SRC Review Federal Court order .25 52.50 08/23/94 MCD Review ALJ order .32 56.00 08/24/94 MCD Review Order received from Judge Wolfson Intra-office conference with .32 56.00 SRC regarding Order 08/25/94 MCD Correspondence to Board attorney .32 56.00 08/30/94 MCD Telephone call to client and Association President .32 56.00 08/31/94 MCD Review Commissioner's decision .75 56.00 OF=131.25; AR=75.25 MCD Telephone call to client and Association President OF=175.00; 1.00 131.25 AR=43.75 09/01/94 MCD Telephone call from client .32 56.00 MCD Preparation of motion to amend petition and prosposed amended petition 2.00 350.00 09/02/94 MCD Telephone call to Association President and client regarding Board's decision 1.00 175.00 to reinstate 09/06/94 MCD Review documents received from .32 56.00 Association MCD Telephone call from Association .32 56.00 President MCD Draft revisions to motion to amend petition of appeal in light of Board's .50 87.50 appeal 09/07/94 MCD Telephone call from client regarding reporting school .64 112.00 09/08/94 SRC Intra-office conference regarding status Review correspondence Review Commissioner of Education decision OF=262.50 Telephone call to Assoication President 1.25 210.00 AR=52.50 SRC Telephone call to client OF=105.00; .50 33.60 AR=71.40 MCD Intra-office conference regarding damages research 1.00 175.00 MCD Telephone call from client regarding Principal Morgan .32 56.00 09/09/94 MCD Telephone call to client .32 56.00 MCD Correspondence to Judge Wolfson .32 56.00 09/12/94 SRC Review correspondence Intra-office conference regarding research on Sec. 1983 damages .50 105.00 MCD Telephone call to client .32 56.00 09/14/94 SRC Telephone call from client .25 52.50 MCD Legal research -- damages/emotional distress Memo to file 2.50 437.50 MCD Intra-office conference regarding correspondence received from Board .32 56.00 09/15/94 MCD Review detailed medical records 1.00 175.00 MCD Telephone call to Association President .32 56.00 09/16/94 SRC Review correspondence .50 105.00 SRC Review correspondence Review calculations received from Board attorney Telephone call from 1.00 210.00 Association MCD Intra-office conference regarding Federal Court proceedings .50 87.50 MCD Memo to file Telephone call from client Telephone call to client regarding medical history -- emotional distress 1.00 175.00 treatment 09/20/94 MCD Legal Research -- NJSA 18A:6-10 and .16 28.00 18A:29-14 MCD Telephone call to Dr. VonSuskil's .32 56.00 office MCD Draft and review revisions to amended petition of appeal 1.00 175.00 MCD Telephone call to client regarding amended petition of appeal .64 112.00 09/21/94 MCD Correspondence to client .32 56.00 MCD Telephone call to client .32 56.00 MCD Intra-office conference OF=87.50; AR=31 .50 56.00 .50 SRC Memo to file Telephone call to Board attorney regarding salary issues Correspondence to Board attorney regarding salary computations 1.50 315.00 SRC Review correspondence Correspondence to DAG .50 105.00 SRC Telephone call to Association Review correspondence .50 105.00 09/22/94 SRC Telephone call from Asbury Park Press Editorial Board Telephone conference call with Judge Wolfson and Board attorney .50 105.00 MCD Telephone call to client .16 28.00 MCD Intra-office conference regarding 1.00 43.75 stratagy OF=175.00; AR=131.25 09/23/94 SRC Review correspondence Correspondence to Board attorney .50 105.00 09/26/94 MCD Preparation for video deposition .50 87.50 09/28/94 SRC Review correspondence from Board attorney, State Board Legal Committee, Roslynne Novack and StatesBoard .50 105.00 MCD Telephone call to Association President .32 56.00 09/29/94 MCD Telephone call to Board attorney .50 87.50 09/30/94 SRC Review correspondence Telephone call from Association President Correspondence to client .75 157.50 10/03/94 SRC Review correspondence from Board attorney and Association .50 105.00 10/04/94 SRC Memo to file Telephone call from Association .50 105.00 10/05/94 MCD Telephone call to client .50 87.50 10/06/94 SRC Telephone call to client .25 52.50 MCD Telephone call to Board attorney .32 56.00 10/07/94 SRC Memo to file .25 52.50 SRC Review Board of Education Minutes of 9/ .25 52.50 1/94 MCD Intra-office conference regarding .32 56.00 status 10/11/94 JEP Telephone call to Association regarding video deposition .16 12.00 MCD Legal Research -- briefing requirements -- State Board of Education .32 56.00 10/12/94 JEP Correspondence to all parties regarding video deposition .32 24.00 10/13/94 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC .32 56.00 regarding status 10/17/94 MCD Review brief submitted by Board 2.00 350.00 attorney 10/18/94 SRC Review correspondence .16 33.60 10/19/94 MCD Legal Research -- cases cited by Board in its Brief 2.00 350.00 MCD Review report of Dr. Motley .32 56.00 10/20/94 SRC Intra-office conference regarding reply brief to Board's Points of Appeal .75 157.50 MCD Legal research -- cases cited by Board attorney in brief to State Board .50 87.50 MCD Intra-office conference regarding brief 1.00 131.25 OF=175.00; AR=43.75. 10/21/94 SRC Intra-office conference with MCD Review correspondence from State Board Review Report .75 157.50 MCD Intra-office conference regarding report of Dr. Motley .32 56.00 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of education 3.00 525.00 MCD Review Dr. Motley's report .50 87.50 MCD Legal Research -- reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education .16 28.00 10/24/94 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 3.00 525.00 10/26/94 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 3.00 525.00 MCD Telephone call from client .32 56.00 10/27/94 JEP Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 2.50 187.50 JEP Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education .50 37.50 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 2.50 437.50 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC regarding depositions Telephone call from Association Telephone call to client Memo to file 1.00 175.00 10/28/94 MCD Telephone call to State Board and .50 87.50 Hundley MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 2.00 350.00 10/31/94 MCD Correspondence to State Board Preparation of Certification regarding receipt of Board's brief .50 87.50 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 2.00 350.00 11/01/94 SRC Intra-office conference Memo to file Review correspondence .50 105.00 MCD Review Board's brief and authorizaties cited therein; Preparation and draft reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 4.00 700.00 MCD Telephone call to client regarding .32 56.00 depositions 11/02/94 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 2.00 350.00 MCD Telephone call to State Board .32 56.00 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC .32 56.00 regarding brief 11/03/94 MCD Preparation and draft reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 2.50 437.50 MCD telephone call to client regarding calculations of backpay .32 56.00 MCD Telephone call to Association President .32 56.00 11/04/94 MCD Preparation and draft reply brief to be submitted to State Board of 3.00 481.25 Education OF=525.00; AR=43.75 11/07/94 MCD Preparation and draft reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 3.00 525.00 MCD Telephone call to Hundley regarding .32 56.00 depositions 11/08/94 MCD Draft reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 3.50 612.50 MCD Telephone call to Sokow regarding .32 56.00 depositions 11/09/94 MCD Preparation and draft reply brief to be submitted to State Board of 2.00 350.00 Education MCD Telephone call to client .50 87.50 MCD Preparation and draft reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 1.00 175.00 SRC Draft revisions to draft reply 7.00 1260.00 answering brief OF=1470.00; AR=210.00 11/10/94 SRC Draft revisions to draft reply brief to be submitted to State Board of 1.50 315.00 Education MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 2.00 350.00 11/11/94 SRC Legal Research Draft revisions to reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 7.50 1575.00 JEP Telephone call to Court reporters .16 12.00 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 3.00 525.00 11/14/94 SRC Draft reply brief 5.00 1050.00 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education Intra-office conference with SRC 2.00 350.00 MCD Telephone call from Fred Dunne .32 56.00 MCD Telephone call from Association .16 28.00 President MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 1.00 175.00 11/15/94 SRC Draft revisions to reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 2.00 367.50 OF=420.00; AR=52.50 SRC Intra-office conference regarding impact on appeal Review 2nd Circuit opinion .50 105.00 MCD Telephone call to Mr. Hundley regarding wages, depositions and Jeffries case .50 56.00 OF=87.50; AR=31.50 MCD Preparation of reply brief to be submitted to State Board of Education 1.50 262.50 11/16/94 MCD Intra-office conference regarding .32 56.00 Jeffries Case MCD Legal Research -- 2nd Circuit decisions 1.50 262.50 11/17/94 MCD Telephone call from Fred Dunne .32 43.75 OF=56.00; AR=12.25 MCD Correspondence to Fred Dunne .32 56.00 11/18/94 SRC Legal research for reply brief Telephone call from Association 1.25 262.50 11/21/94 MCD Telephone call from client Intra-office conference regarding .50 87.50 depositions 11/22/94 JSS Intra-office conference with SRC and .32 67.20 MCD JEP Telephone call to Board attorney regarding scheduling of depositions .32 24.00 SRC Review correspondence .25 52.50 11/23/94 JEP Telephone calls regarding scheduling of video deposition of client .32 24.00 11/29/94 SRC Telephone call to Association Review correspondence .50 105.00 SRC Intra-office conference regarding deposition of client Telephone conference call with Richard McOmber Esq. .50 105.00 11/30/94 SRC Review correspondence from Dr. Nahum Telephone call to Association .50 105.00 12/01/94 MCD Intra-office conference Telephone call to Board attorney .50 87.50 MCD Telephone call to Mr. Comlen .50 87.50 SRC Review correspondence Correspondence to Richard McOmber, Esq. .50 105.00 JEP Correspondence to all parties regarding video deposition of client .25 18.75 JEP Correspondence to McOmber and Judge .50 37.50 12/02/94 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC .16 28.00 MCD Telephone call to Board and to Mr. Hungley Review reply brief of Board 1.00 175.00 attorney MCD Telephone call from Judge Wolfson Intra-office conference .32 56.00 SRC Review Board reply brief Intra-office conference with MCD regarding possible reply brief .75 157.50 12/05/94 JSS Intra-office conference with SRC and MCD regarding strategy on State Board .75 157.50 MCD Correspondence to Mr. McOmber .32 56.00 MCD Intra-office conference regarding filing of rebuttal brief and strategy 1.00 131.25 OF=175.00; AR=43.75 MCD Memo to file regarding punitive damages Legal Research -- individual liability 2.00 350.00 SRC Telephone conference call with Judge Wolfson and Board attorney Intra-office conference with MCD regarding conference call Review research regarding punitive 1.25 262.50 damages SRC Intra-office conference with MCD and JSS regarding filing rebuttal brief to Board reply -- strategy Memo to file 1.25 262.50 12/06/94 MCD Correspondence to Judge Wolfson .50 87.50 12/08/94 SRC Review correspondence .25 52.50 MCD Intra-office conference regarding .16 28.00 interrogatories MCD Telephone conference call with Judge Law's clerk File Review on increment .32 43.75 withholding OF=56.00; AR=12.25 12/12/94 MCD Intra-office conference regarding interrogatories from Board attorney .16 28.00 12/13/94 MCD Telephone call to client .32 56.00 12/14/94 MCD Correspondence to Judge Law .32 56.00 SRC review correspondence from J. Peter .25 52.50 Sokol, Esq. 12/15/94 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC .16 28.00 12/16/94 MCD Telephone calls to and from Mr. Hundley and client .50 87.50 MCD Correspondence to client regarding responses to interrogatories .16 28.00 12/20/94 JEP Correspondence to Judge law and Mr. .25 18.75 Mooij 12/29/94 MCD Review correspondence from Business Administrator Mooij and figures as to .32 56.00 money due client MCD Correspondence to client and Association President .32 56.00 01/04/95 MCD Telephone call to client and Association President regarding increment withholding Review .50 87.50 correspondence from Mooij 01/05/95 JEP Correspondence to Board attorney .16 12.00 MCD Telephone call to Dr. Motley .32 56.00 MCD Correspondence to Mr. Hundley regarding amounts due client 1.00 175.00 SRC Telephone calls to State Board, client and Association .75 157.50 01/06/95 SRC Review correspondence from Board .25 52.50 attorney 01/09/95 SRC Telephone call to Fred Dunne, Esq. .25 52.50 01/10/95 SRC Review decision of State Board of Education Correspondence to Association, Board Attorney and Judge 1.00 210.00 Wolfson 01/13/95 SRC Intra-office conference with JSS and MD regarding settlement. Telephone call to Clark. 1.00 210.00 MCD Intra-office conference with SRC and JSS regarding settlement Telephone call to Hundley 1.25 218.75 01/16/95 SRC Telephone call from Fred Dunne, Esq. Telephone call to - return telephone call of April Clark, Telephone call from David Clark. .75 157.50 01/17/95 MCD Telephone call to Mr. Hundley .16 28.00 01/18/95 MCD Intra-office conference regarding .16 28.00 settlement 01/19/95 MCD Intra-office conference regarding settlement negotiations .48 84.00 01/20/95 SRC Telephone call to client and Fred Dunne, Esq. Telephone conference call with Fred Dunne, Esq. and James Hundley, Esq. OF=420.00; 2.00 262.50 AR=157.50 SRC Draft and revise separation agreement including resignation letter and 3.00 630.00 letter of instruction CHS Intra-office conference regarding settlement offer .50 87.50 01/23/95 MCD Telephone call to Hundley's office. .50 87.50 01/24/95 SRC Telephone call from April Clark. Telephone call to Fred Dunne. Telephone call to April Clark. Review correspondence from Fred Dunne, Esq. Correspondence to Fred Dunne, Esq. All of the above regarding settlement of litigation. 1.25 262.50 SRC Telephone call from Lucille Alfano, NTEA President. .25 52.50 SRC Telephone call to client. .25 52.50 MCD Telephone call to client and wife regarding settlement. Intra-office conference. .50 87.50 01/25/95 SRC Telephone call to Fred Dunne. Telephone call to April Clark regarding settlement. .75 157.50 MCD Memo to file regarding settlement. .50 87.50 MCD Correspondence to opposint counsel to review complaint. Intra-office conference. .50 87.50 01/26/95 SRC Telephone call from April Clark. Telephone call from Fred Dunne, Esq. .50 105.00 MCD Intra-office conference regarding settlement and attending to completion. .25 43.75 SRC Review fax from Board Secretary regarding certification of settlement. .25 33.60 OF=52.50; AR=18.90 01/27/95 SRC Telephone conference call with Judge Wolfson and defense counsel. .25 52.50 02/02/95 SRC Telephone call from Jim Hundley, Esq. Telephone call to April Clark regarding settlement compliance. .25 52.50 02/03/95 SRC Review correspondence from Fred Dunne, .25 52.50 Esq. 02/10/95 SRC Telephone call to Fred Dunne regarding .50 105.00 releases 02/23/95 SRC Telephone call to Fred Dunne, Esq. Review correspondence from ALJ regarding increment case. .50 105.00 03/06/95 SRC File Review regarding status - increment cases. Correspondence to ALJ. .50 105.00 03/21/95 SRC Review correspondence from OAL regarding withdrawal of petition .25 52.50

 APPENDIX C The Court awards the following costs: Photocopies 495.93 Mailings 174.00 Travel 102.38 Filing Fees 120.00 Telephone 473.18 Fax charges 197.00 Parking .75 Smart Corporation -- medical records 33.35 Medical Records -- Neptune Orthopedic 50.00 Doctor Report Fees -- John Motlet, M.D. 125.00 Telephone charges for conference call held 9/22/94 35.08 Telephone conference call charges from 12/5/94 113.57 Telephone conference call charges from 1/27/95 46.50 Research (Westlaw) 253.00 Total Costs $ 2,219.74


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.