Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services
- Vyskocil
- 1:17-cv-03014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services, Judge Vyskocil let Mariah Lopez seek attorney’s fees but reserved whether a live dispute existed.
Mariah Lopez and her attorneys may file a motion for attorney’s fees; the defendants may oppose it. The order does not determine whether fees will be awarded.
What happened
In Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services, Mariah Lopez asked for permission to file a request for attorney’s fees after the parties settled her individual emotional-distress claim. The court reviewed the parties’ filings about whether Lopez still had a legal basis to pursue the case when they settled.
The court granted Lopez permission to file the fee request, but it did not decide whether she had standing or whether a live dispute still existed. The court said it was inclined to find that no live dispute remained after the agreement reached on or about September 23, 2021. It directed Lopez’s attorneys to calculate fees through that date and, separately, through November 24, 2021.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered Lopez to file any fee motion by September 19, 2023. The defendants’ opposition is due October 3, and any reply is due October 10. The order grants permission to seek fees; it does not award fees.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services · No. 1:17-cv-03014
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 29, 2023
Background
Mariah Lopez requested leave, or permission, to file a motion for attorney’s fees. The request followed a settlement concerning Lopez’s individual emotional-distress claim, reached on or about September 23, 2021. The court had directed the parties to address whether Lopez had standing—the legal basis to pursue the case—and whether a live case or controversy still existed when they settled.
Court’s Analysis
The court reserved decision on standing and mootness, meaning whether the dispute had ceased to require a judicial decision. The court was, at minimum, inclined to conclude that no live case or controversy remained after the parties reached their agreement. It noted that the case was not a class action and that the Supreme Court had rejected the “catalyst theory” as a basis for awarding attorney’s fees. The court nevertheless stated that Lopez’s attorneys could argue for fees from their first appearance through November 24, 2021, while also requiring them to calculate a request ending on or about September 23, 2021.
Order
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Lopez leave to file a motion for attorney’s fees. The court did not decide the standing or mootness issues and did not award attorney’s fees in this order. Lopez’s fee motion is due September 19, 2023; the defendants’ opposition is due October 3, 2023; and any reply is due October 10, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.