When A Civil Rights Plaintiff Can 'Win' But Not 'Prevail'


The May 15, 2012 edition of Bloomberg/BNA Law Week includes a leading "BNA Insights" article by Pryor Cashman Litigation Partner William Charron regarding a Federal Circuit Court split as to what it means for a plaintiff to "prevail" under the federal Civil Rights Act in order for the plaintiff to be entitled to recovery of its attorneys' fees.

The article arises out of a case Charon handled for a client against the Attorney General of New Jersey, where he argued that New Jersey had unconstitutionally tried to divest Pryor Cashman's client of its unregistered trademark rights under New Jersey's so-called "Truth In Music Act."

After Charron obtained a temporary restraining order against New Jersey's enforcement of its statute on First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process and Supremacy Clause grounds, the State changed its position and agreed not to continue enforcing its Truth In Music Act as it had done. Charron then argued that Pryor Cashman's client had "prevailed" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and moved for an award of fees.

Although the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Charron's motion, in 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that ruling and, by a 2-1 decision, agreed with Charron's arguments. In 2011, however, a full "en banc" panel of the Third Circuit (consisting of 16 federal appellate judges) reheard oral argument in the case and again reversed, reinstating the District Court's initial ruling. As that ruling conflicted with the decisions of other federal appeals courts around the nation, Charron asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a writ certiorari to further review this important federal matter. The Supreme Court denied that petition.

Charron wrote his article, entitled "When A Civil Rights Plaintiff Can 'Win' But Not 'Prevail'", and sought to publish it in a prestigious nationwide periodical such as Bloomberg/BNA, in the hope of reaching a broad audience in order to shed light on this complex area of law. Charron's article concludes with the opinion that the Supreme Court should step in and resolve the conflict among the federal courts, and should issue a decision that effectively would overrule the Third Circuit's en banc opinion.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pryor Cashman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Pryor Cashman LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.