: PETITIONER, : V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION : BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON, : ESSEX COUNTY, : RESPONDENT.



Similar documents
V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

# RESPONDENT. : SYNOPSIS

J. P., ) ) Complainant, ) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ) v. ) SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ) CLIFFSIDE PARK BOARD OF ) EDUCATION, ) ) Respondent.

July 12, D.F., on behalf of minor child, E.F., : PETITIONER, : V. : BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : BOROUGH OF ROSELLE PARK, UNION COUNTY, :

This matter was opened before the Director, Division of Medical Assistance and

# (OAL Decision:

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY. May 1, 2012

Case 5:10-cv MTT Document 18 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

2013 IL App (1st) U. No

STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION SYNOPSIS

Order to Show Cause to Nancy Becker. The Office of Licensure and Credentials had

At its meeting of September 11, 2008, the State Board of Examiners reviewed an

In the Matter of the Arbitration between

Stefani C. Schwartz, Esq., and Jason J. Lavery, Esq. (Schwartz Simon Edelstein Celso & Kessler LLP, attorneys), appeared for the respondent.

In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV FILED

Illinois Official Reports

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

In the Matter of Peter Kristensen DOP Docket No (Merit System Board, decided December 15, 2004)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

1:09-cv TLL-CEB Doc # 120 Filed 08/11/10 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Special Civil Mandatory Attorney s Fees

Case 3:07-cv TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

CASE 0:12-cv DSD-AJB Document 72 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 7. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT NORTHERN DISTRICT FRANK FODERA, SR.

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

2015 IL App (3d) U. Order filed February 26, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015

U.S. Supreme Court City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986)

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1 Atlantic Associates also complained against Mr. Curtis Lackland alleging that his proposal for the position of

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION

Illinois Official Reports

United States Court of Appeals

In re the Marriage of: SUSAN MARIE TRASK, Petitioner/Appellant, WADE MARTIN HANDLEY, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV FC

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE. STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. ) No. 1 CA-SA WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa )

How To Find That A Medical Malpractice Claim Is Not Grounds For A Court Action

STATE OF NEW JERSEY Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, g th Floor Post Office Box 350 Trenton, New Jersey J..,Q...

Patricia Clarey, President; Richard Costigan, and Lauri Shanahan, DECISION. This case is before the State Personnel Board (SPB or the Board) after the

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

How To Resolve A Fee Dispute In A Personal Injury Action In N.Y.S.A.U.S

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. ) v. ) ) MISSY LYNN BALL, ) Appeal No. 02A GS ) Defendant/Petitioner/Appellee.

Appellant S Permit Application - An Appeal From the Department of Business

JANINE WALKER CAFFREY

No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

George J. Badey, III, Philadelphia, for petitioner. Robert F. Kelly, Jr., Media, for respondent.

2013 PA Super 29. APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY No EDA 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ATLANTIC CITY DISTRICT

THE SILENT KILLER: What New Jersey attorneys need to know about Chapter 91. By David B. Wolfe 1

DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ORDER

Supreme Court No Appeal. (PB ) Bank of America, N.A. : v. : P.T.A. Realty, LLC, et al. :

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY

2016 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

INTRASTATE RELOCATION IN NEW JERSEY

How To Decide If A Shipyard Can Pay For A Boatyard

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Award of Dispute Resolution Professional. Hearing Information

Nos , , cons. Order filed February 18, 2011 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Matter of: ROBIN LIN IULIANO, Petitioner/Appellant, CARL WLOCH, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV

MARCELLO ARBIZO III, Petitioner/Appellee, AMANDA SHANK, Respondent/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV Filed September 18, 2015

2015 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ. O P I N I O N

Workers Compensation Mandatory Attorney Fees

How To Get A $1.5 Multiplier On Attorney'S Fees In Florida

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November Appeal by Respondents from orders entered 14 September 2009 by

PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO THE REASONABLENESS AND NECESSITY OF THE FEES REQUESTED BY DEFENDANT

2015 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2003 Session

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE OPPOSING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. GARNETT F. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency.

FILED November 9, 2007

Case 8:13-cv VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

(Merit System Board, decided February 25, 2004)

How To Decide If A Judgment Against A Man Is Valid

Transcription:

#131-14 (OAL Decision Not yet available online) DANA GREENE, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DECISION TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON, ESSEX COUNTY, RESPONDENT. SYNOPSIS Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A16-6.1, the petitioner on February 14, 2012 requested reimbursement in the amount of $68,425.79 from the respondent Board for the legal fees and costs expended in the defense of a criminal complaint against him which had been dismissed by the court. The Board denied the reimbursement, on the grounds that the request lacked proof of payment of the legal fees by the petitioner. As petitioner is a member by the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), his legal fees and expenses were paid by the NJEA pursuant to its practice of providing a legal defense fund for its members. The petitioner filed the within appeal in March 2012, and his attorney subsequently revised the reimbursement amount to $46,176, representing a calculation of fees based on a reduction in the rates charged to reflect the NJEA unified hourly rate ($149 or $150 per hour) for firm associates, and a $250 per hour rate for services performed by the lead defense attorney. The Board contended, inter alia, that petitioner has no standing because the NJEA financed his defense, and as such petitioner has no costs to be reimbursed. The ALJ found, inter alia, that the petitioner in this matter was charged with a criminal offense that arose out of his official duties as a teacher, which was ultimately dismissed; it is undisputed that petitioner was completely exonerated of the charge; accordingly, under N.J.S.A. 18A16-6.1, the respondent Board is legally obligated to indemnify the petitioner; hours related to both the unfounded investigation by the Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU) and the municipal court criminal matter were reasonable for reimbursement; however, the reimbursement rate should be the NJEA rate in effect at the time of performance of the legal services, i.e. either $149 or $150 per hour depending on date of service. The ALJ ordered that respondent reimburse the petitioner for legal fees immediately upon receipt of a revised bill, as follows $694.01 for expenses; $676.78 for investigator fees; and 267.5 hours of attorney fees at the NJEA hourly rate of $149 for work performed from September 2010 to August 2011, and $150 for the period from September 2011 to August 2012. Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the ALJ s determination that petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorney s fees from the Board, and found that the billed hours related to the IAIU investigation were part and parcel of the defense of the criminal complaint. However, the Commissioner found that the ALJ summarily determined that the NJEA unified rate should be the reasonable rate at which the respondent must reimburse; in so doing, the ALJ failed to complete the required analysis of evidence in the record to determine whether the hours billed were reasonable; the record supports that the rates billed by the lead attorney were reasonable, but is devoid of evidence relating to the reasonableness of the billing for associate hours. Accordingly, the Commissioner adopted the decision of the OAL with modification, and directed the Board to reimburse petitioner for expenses and fees as itemized above, and for 47.8 hours of attorney work at $250 per hour. This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner. March 20, 2014

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04772-12 AGENCY DKT. NO. 57-3/12 DANA GREENE, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DECISION TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON, ESSEX COUNTY, RESPONDENT. The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have been reviewed. Respondent s exceptions filed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 11-18.4 were fully considered by the Commissioner in reaching his determination herein. This matter arises out of a claim by petitioner, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A16-6.1, for reimbursement of legal fees and costs incurred in the successful defense of a criminal harassment charge filed against him in the Irvington Municipal Court. The criminal complaint was signed on March 8, 2011 and alleged that petitioner had made improper sexual advances toward a student during class at respondent s Mt. Vernon Avenue School. The allegations that formed the basis of the criminal complaint were also the subject of a related investigation by the Department of Children and Families, Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU). Ultimately, the IAIU determined the allegations were unfounded, which determination served as a basis for dismissal of the criminal complaint on January 17, 2012. Petitioner was represented by Timothy R. Smith, Esq., of the law firm of Caruso Smith Edell Picini, P.C. Smith and various associates of the Caruso firm performed legal services in connection with the matter from December 20, 2010 through January 27, 2012. Itemized billing 1

records reflect a total of 267.5 hours expended on the matter, including 47.8 hours of work by Smith and 219.7 hours of work by associates. In addition, $694.01 of expenses and $676.78 in investigator fees were incurred. Petitioner is a dues-paying member of the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA). The Caruso firm participates in the NJEA Legal Services Program, pursuant to which NJEA provides a legal defense pool for its members. The fees and expenses associated with the legal services provided to petitioner by the Caruso firm were paid by the NJEA, at the then-applicable unified rate of $149 per hour for services performed prior to September 1, 2011, and $150 per hour for services performed from that date forward. The demand for reimbursement seeks a total of $46,176.00, inclusive of $694.01 of expenses, $676.78 in investigator fees, and payment for services at a rate of $250 per hour for all services performed by Smith, and at the applicable NJEA unified rate for services performed by associates of the Caruso firm. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision in which she determined that the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement from respondent for all reasonable counsel fees and expenses pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A16-6.1. In reaching that determination, the ALJ specifically found that the allegations underlying the criminal charge and the IAIU investigation arose out of petitioner s official duties as a teacher, and that petitioner had obtained a favorable result since the IAIU investigation was unfounded and the criminal charges were ultimately dismissed. The ALJ further determined that petitioner s attorney provided adequate proof that 267.5 hours were spent on this matter, and that the number of hours was reasonable; however, in calculating the recoverable fees, the ALJ reduced the hourly rate for services performed by Smith from $250 to the applicable NJEA unified rate the same rate at which the associates sought to be reimbursed. In so doing, the ALJ took note of Smith s substantial skill and experience, and acknowledged that a $250 hourly rate would be warranted in other contexts. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that where, as 2

here, Smith accepted the matter through the NJEA Legal Services Program at the applicable unified rate, the unified rate should also be used for reimbursement purposes. Upon a comprehensive review of the record in this matter, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ s determination that petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorneys fees from respondent. Respondent does not dispute that petitioner meets the statutory requirements, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A16-6.1, for reimbursement of reasonable counsel fees and expenses. Respondent, however, challenges the reasonableness of the legal fees at issue. More specifically, respondent argues in its exceptions that the ALJ should have excluded from petitioner s indemnification award those hours that were devoted to the IAIU investigation since they were not inherently connected to the criminal proceeding. The Commissioner disagrees. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A16-6.1, the board of education is required to reimburse legal fees associated with the defense of both criminal and quasi-criminal actions. Moreover, the record reflects that the IAIU investigation, and the results thereof, were an integral part of the successful defense of the criminal complaint against petitioner. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the hours devoted to the IAIU investigation were part and parcel of the Caruso firm s efforts in defense of the criminal complaint, and the ALJ properly included those hours in the reimbursement calculation. Respondent further argues that the ALJ failed to consider the appropriate factors in determining that the Caruso firm s fee was reasonable. In analyzing a fee application, it is necessary to begin with the calculation of the lodestar which is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 324 (1995). In order to complete the calculation, the reasonable hourly rate must be evaluated according to prevailing market rates. Therefore the court must compare the hourly rate sought to those of attorneys in the community with comparable skill, experience, and reputation. (Id. at 337, citations 3

omitted) Although the determination need not be unnecessarily complex or protracted, the court must also ensure that the hourly rates are fair, realistic, and accurate. (Id.) The Commissioner finds that the ALJ failed to complete the required analysis vis-àvis petitioner s fee application. In that regard, the ALJ began the analysis by reviewing the number of hours expended, and concluding that the number was reasonable. The ALJ failed, however, to complete the analysis by evaluating the evidence in the record to determine whether it supported a finding that the hourly rates charged by Smith and his associates were reasonable. Instead, the ALJ summarily determined that the NJEA unified rate should be the reasonable rate at which the respondent must reimburse. The notion that the NJEA unified rate must be used for reimbursement purposes where an attorney accepts a matter through the NJEA Legal Services Program has been rejected. See Salaam v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Irvington, Commissioner s Decision No. 264-12, decided June 25, 2012, aff d, Dkt. No. A-5592-11T4 (App. Div. 2014). Respondent is statutorily obligated to pay reasonable counsel fees. That obligation is not altered by the fact that NJEA financed petitioner s defense. Thus, the ALJ should have completed the analysis, and determined whether the evidence in the record establishes that the billing rate of each attorney that worked on Greene s case is reasonable considering the rates of other attorneys in the relevant community with comparable skill, experience and reputation. The Commissioner is satisfied that Smith s $250 hourly rate is reasonable, given his considerable skill and experience, as established by information contained in his certification and the affidavit of Paul DaSilva, Esq. However, with respect to the associates who also appear in the time records submitted by petitioner, the Commissioner finds the record devoid of evidence which would allow a determination as to whether their experience, skill and reputation would justify a conclusion that the hourly rates charged for their time was reasonable. Accordingly, the charges attributable to these individuals must be excluded from petitioner s indemnification award. See Salaam, supra. 4

With the exception of an untimely argument that the NJEA should have been joined as an indispensible party 1, the remainder of respondent s exceptions essentially recast and reiterate its arguments advanced below. In that it is determined that the ALJ fully considered and addressed them in her decision, further elaboration on these arguments is unnecessary here. Accordingly, the recommended decision of the OAL, as modified above, is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The Board of Education of the Township of Irvington is hereby directed to reimburse petitioner for legal fees as follows 1) expenses of $694.01; 2) investigator fees of $676.78; and, 3) 47.8 hours of attorney work at the hourly rate of $250. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION Date of Decision March 20, 2014 Date of Mailing March 21, 2014 1 Since this affirmative defense was not raised below, it will not be considered by the Commissioner in reaching a final decision in this matter. 2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36 (N.J.S.A. 18A6-9.1). 5