Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · 1991 · Property

PropertyAttorney's feesExpert witness feesFair Housing Act42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2)42 U.S.C. § 198828 U.S.C. § 1821(b)expert witness fees

Facts

The court had earlier concluded that plaintiffs could recover expert witness fees incurred in preparing and trying the case. After that ruling, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey and held that expert witness fees were not recoverable beyond the amount allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b) absent contract or explicit statutory authority. Plaintiffs argued that the Fair Housing Act's fee provision, allowing a reasonable attorney's fee and costs, differed materially from the Civil Rights Act language at issue in Casey, which allowed attorney's fees as part of the costs. Defendants asked the court to reduce the previously fixed award by $19,889.80 representing expert witness fees.

Issue

Whether, after Casey, the court could include expert witness fees in plaintiffs' fee-and-cost award under the Fair Housing Act's provision authorizing a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. More specifically, the question was whether the statutory wording difference between attorney's fee and costs and attorney's fee as part of the costs was legally significant enough to permit expert-fee recovery beyond § 1821(b).

Rule

When a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limits of 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b) absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary. A fee-shifting statute authorizing attorney's fees and costs does not, without such explicit authority, permit recovery of additional expert witness fees merely because its wording differs from a statute authorizing attorney's fees as part of costs.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal housing-discrimination suit in Cleveland, Priya Desai prevails against Lakeview Zoning Board. The statute she sued under allows the court to award the prevailing party "a reasonable attorney's fee and costs," and she seeks $32,000 for her urban-planning expert's trial preparation and testimony.

May the district court award Priya the full $32,000 in expert witness fees under that statute?

Explanation. The governing rule is that when a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limits of 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b) absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary. A statute authorizing a reasonable attorney's fee and costs does not itself provide the explicit authority needed to award the full expert fee. (Derived from Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington (n.d.).)