Scarnati Off the Hook for Attorney Fees From Gerrymandering Legal Battle
A federal appeals court has overturned an order requiring state Sen. Joseph Scarnati, R-Jefferson, to pay the League of Women Voters' attorney fees stemming from the legal battle over gerrymandering in Pennsylvania.
April 24, 2019 at 04:09 PM
3 minute read
A federal appeals court has overturned an order requiring state Sen. Joseph Scarnati, R-Jefferson, to pay the League of Women Voters' attorney fees stemming from the legal battle over gerrymandering in Pennsylvania.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Scarnati no longer has to personally pay $29,000 to the league's lawyers to cover the fees resulting from Scarnati's attempt to have the gerrymandering challenge litigated in federal court.
“The district court erred in awarding fees against Senator Scarnati in his personal capacity,” Third Circuit Judge Joseph Scirica wrote in the court's opinion. “Named in the suit in his official capacity as president pro tempore of the state Senate, he was personally not a party in this action, and the court has no power … to sanction a nonparty. Because it neither found bad faith nor invoked any other source of authority to impose sanctions on Senator Scarnati in his personal capacity, we will not consider on appeal whether such sanctions would be appropriate.”
However, the Third Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's ruling that attorney fees were owed, although the appellate court's opinion was silent about who should have to pick up the tab.
The Public Interest Law Center represented the league in the case and its legal director, Mimi McKenzie, said the taxpayers would be footing the bill now.
“This decision underscores the problem of taxpayers having to pay to defend outrageous tactics by Senator Scarnati,” McKenzie said.
She added that Scarnati was “defending what was an indefensible a partisan map. Then he spends even more taxpayer money by avoiding having to pay for these misdeeds.”
Scarnati's lawyer, Matthew Haverstick of Kleinbard in Philadelphia, said, “We're satisfied that the court understood and respected the distinction between a public official's governmental role and personal life.”
The league alleged that Scarnati's removal of the case from state to federal court was frivolous and demanded $52,000—an amount that Baylson ultimately cut down.
In March 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal appeals panel each rejected separate challenges brought by state Republicans aimed at invalidating the state's recently redrawn congressional map.
A specially convened three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that several state and federal legislators did not have standing to bring claims over the map, and later that day, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a separate request to stay implementation of the new congressional district map, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued in February.
The rulings came after several months of fighting over whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overstepped its authority when it determined the 2011 congressional map had been unconstitutionally gerrymandered, and then redrew the districts.
At the Supreme Court level, plaintiffs, who included Pennsylvania House of Representatives Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, and Scarnati, had sought an emergency stay of the new map. That request, made in Turzai v. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, was denied without explanation by the justices.
At the district court level, the specially convened panel found that state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre, and state Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, who is chair of the Senate's government committee, and eight members of the state's congressional delegation did not have standing to challenge the map. The ruling in Corman v. Torres dismissed the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
- 2Legal Events for Georgia Lawyers
- 3'There is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
- 4The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 5Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250