Same-sex couples in recalcitrant counties and states have a problem, as illustrated by this case
Comments
If filing a lawsuit can force compliance before an answer is due, I would think that one calls it a good day and goes home. The goal of the lawsuit was achieved in the most rapid possible way at the minimum cost associated with a lawsuit, and without risk of an adverse ruling or appeal. Justice prevails. Pursuing sanctions would cost more than it is worth.
If the suit had gone forward and produced judgment on the pleadings, followed by legal action to enforce the judgment, or a quick success on a motion for summary judgment, there is no guarantee that 100% of the attorneys’ fees incurred would have been recovered in the end anyway.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jul 9, 2015 11:45:49 PM
Interesting–this strikes me as a sort of reverse-SLAPP lawsuit. The anti-SLAPP procedures that require a party to remain in the case and potentially be subject to fees would be useful in this area.
Posted by: Francis | Jul 8, 2015 7:29:27 PM
Whoops! I commented on the wrong post.
This is interesting. In patent cases, where you commonly see plaintiffs pull out before trial, courts have held that the motion to dismiss and then dismissal with prejudice is sufficient to constitute being a prevailing party. In other words (and contrary to my argument on mootness before), if the state voluntarily complies after being sued, plaintiffs should seek a dismissal with prejudice, not a dismissal for mootness.
Posted by: Michael Risch | Jul 8, 2015 4:04:22 PM