Judge Urbanski Awards Attorney Fees in Breach of Consent Injunction

Judge Urbanski recently issued an interesting opinion that highlights one of the difference between litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia and Western District of Virginia.

The case involved the defendant's breach of a non-disparagement clause in a consent injunction.  The plaintiff rented vacation cabins in the Shenandoah Valley and had previously sued defendant over certain online advertising for its vacation rentals.  That case ended with a consent injunction that required defendant to provide ads for plaintiff on its travel websites.  The injunction also included a non-disparagement clause, which plaintiff claimed defendant violated by posting an ad that advised users to beware of hidden fees and charges for plaintiff's rental property.  Judge Urbanski agreed that this ad violated the non-disparagement clause, but rejected other arguments (i.e., that defendant violated the consent order by not placing ads at the top of the webpage).

Judge Urbanski also awarded attorneys fees to plaintiff, but reduced the hourly billing rate from $650 to $350.  Plaintiff's lawyer, from Washington DC, stated that his normal billing rate was $720 per hour, which he reduced to $650 for this matter.  The court, however, stated "while an hourly rate of $650 (or $720) may be well and good for Washington, D.C., and lawsuits involving multinational corporations, it is simply an enormous rate for Harrisonburg, Virginia and and a case involving two local small businesses."  The court also reduced the fee request by one-third because plaintiff had only prevailed on one-third of its arguments in the motion to enforce.

Judge Urbanski's approach to attorney fees stands in stark contrast to some of the recent attorney fees that have been awarded by the Eastern District of Virginia.  As recently reported by Virginia Lawyers Weekly, "[a]ttorneys handling complex civil litigation in Northern Virginia are making use of a new benchmark to win higher fee awards from federal judges."

The case is Allstar Lodging Inc. v. Rookard, No. 5:13cv53 (W.D. Va. Nov. 12, 2013)

Summary Judgment Hearing On First Amendment Challenge To Charlottesville's Panhandling Ban

On Thursday, November 21, Judge Moon heard arguments on summary judgment motions in a case challenging Charlottesville's panhandling ban under the First Amendment.  Judge Moon had originally dismissed the case, but the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision in February.

The arguments during the summary judgment hearing focused on whether the City targeted a specific form of speech or whether the City regulated speech in a neutral way, and whether the ban was broader than reasonably necessary.  The ordinance bans panhandling within 50 feet of two vehicle crossings on the Downtown Mall.  The City justifies the ban as a content-neutral regulation that protects public safety.

The Daily Progress quotes Judge Moon as saying: "The way I see this case, frankly, is whether 50 feet, on either side is too much....  I thought the big problem would be the distraction to divers and the danger to pedestrians."

Counsel for the plaintiffs -- a group of homeless men who want to panhandle on the Downtown Mall -- argued "Panhandlers, for the most part, including my clients, sit passively with a sign along the walls of the Downtown Mall.  They don't stop people."

The attorney for the City of Charlottesville argued that the 50 foot ban was reasonable, especially given the other areas where panhandling is allowed: "What we are dealing with is 200 feet total ... on two crossings on a mall that is one-third of a mile long and 60 feet wide."

Judge Moon is not expected to rule for another two months.  Trial is scheduled in the Western District of Virginia for March 3, 2014.

21 People Apply For Magistrate Judge Position

As noted earlier this week, Magistrate Judge Crigler is going to step down from the bench at the end of this month, and the Western District of Virginia has solicited applications to find a replacement.  Virginia Lawyers Weekly reports that twenty-one attorneys have applied for the job.  A 10-member advisory panel has been appointed and will review the applications in the next 45 to 60 days.  The advisory panel will recommend the five most qualified candidates.  According to Chief Judge Glen Conrad, the district judges will interview those five candidates and select one to serve the eight year term for the federal court.  Other judges will cover Judge Crigler's workload until a new magistrate judge is selected.  Although Judge Crigler's offices were in Charlottesville, the new magistrate judge will be based in Harrisonburg.

Magistrate Judge Crigler to Retire September 30

Earlier this year, Magistrate Judge Waugh Crigler announced that he would be retiring at the end of his term in September 2013.  First appointed in 1981, Judge Cigler has served as a magistrate judge for over 30 years and was a mainstay in the Charlottesville and Harrisonburg divisions.  Judge Crigler grew up in Culpeper, graduated from Washington & Lee University in Lexington, and was an attorney in Virginia and Tennessee before becoming magistrate judge.  

According to a press release about his retirement, “some of his most memorable civil cases have involved landfill, water supply and trash disposal disputes in both Charlottesville other communities in the Western District, the anti-trust action between the Daily Progress and the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors, and the bitter dispute over customers between the area’s two early cable television providers.”

Judge Cigler announced his retirement in advance in order to allow a replacement to be selected.  Earlier this year, the Western District of Virginia issued a Public Notice of Appointment of a New Magistrate Judge, which sought applications for full-time magistrate judge for the Harrisonburg Division.