,
23 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
today is the third and final day of the this trial over charlottesville’s confederate statues. the judge heard argument this morning on the issue of damages. we’ll come back soon to hear his decision on that & then move on to argument about attorneys’ fees.
judge moore issued a declaratory judgment this morning on the february 16, 2017 charlottesville city council resolution to remove the lee statue. because he has ruled that vote did violate the state law protecting war memorials, he’s declared that resolution null & void.
the subsequent resolution to remove the jackson statue was NOT declared void because that resolution contained the explicit condition that action would not be taken unless and until there was a favorable outcome to this litigation (which could still be possible on appeal!)
while the plaintiffs continue to argue that their attorneys fees ARE damages because this litigation has in their view served explicitly to protect and preserve the monuments (which they’ve achieved via injunctive relief), the judge will hear argument on litigation costs later.
as for non attorneys fees related damages, plaintiffs seek an amount of $500 per plaintiff in damages, largely for what they argue was the deprivation of the right to view the statues for the 188 days they were covered by tarps from august 2017 through february 2018.
deputy city attorney lisa robertson argued that the monument protection statute does not allow for the recovery of damages for this. the law fairly clearly sets out that damages are recoverable for returning the statue to its pre-encroachment condition.
robertson argued that because no actual physical harm has come to the monuments and the removal of the tarps was accomplished via the injunction last february, no money is required to restore the statues and therefore no monetary damages should be awarded.
most of the plaintiffs testified to feelings of shock, horror, anger, & great sadness at the vote to remove the statues & the subsequent covering. while the judge agrees with them that they suffered a loss (🙄), he’s not convinced the statute allows them to be compensated for it.
in negotiating whether or not to leave one of the loud window units on, the judge said “i’m willing to be hot,” to which one of the little old ladies in the gallery said (rather loudly!) “take your robe off.”
judge moore seemed saddened by his own decision not to award monetary damages to plaintiffs for the 188 days the statues were covered. he said he came today prepared to award $4000-6000 in damages but ultimately was convinced the statute doesn’t allow it.
in his explanation of his decision on damages, judge moore said that there was “no question” that there is a “harm or a loss” in the inability to view the statues, that otherwise there would be no purpose for the law protecting them.
i’d have to review 200+ pages of handwritten notes to confirm this, but i believe this is the only time i’ve heard the judge refer to the tarps that briefly covered the statues last year as “trash bags,” a term favored by the plaintiffs & objected to by the defense.
his own feelings about the statues haven’t exactly been a mystery all this time, but his use of that term was notable to me.
we’ll hear argument this afternoon on the subject of attorneys’ fees. the plaintiffs are seeking an amount of $604,000 for their work on this case.
the judge won’t be issuing a decision on the total dollar amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded to the plaintiffs today, but he will make some prelimary decisions about some of the issues that will guide his process for determining it.
deputy city attorney robertson argued that the vagueness of the billing record and the inclusion of tasks for which fees are not recoverable requires that certain reductions be made.
so... no real decision today. the judge said he is going to award attorneys’ fees but can’t “reach a good, reliable decision on the amount” today. the finally amount may come in a letter opinion or at a future hearing and he didn’t offer a timeline as to when to expect news.
his announcement that he does intend to award them is a response to what seemed like a hail mary from the defense - an argument that the plaintiffs cited the wrong code subsection in their prayer for relief, making them ineligible to seek attorneys’ fees.
“the obvious purpose” of the monument protection law at issue in this case “is to encourage people to act if they need to,” judge moore said. attorneys’ fees must be awarded to make it possible for public interest litigation to protect the public’s interest.
judge moore will review some case law submitted by the defense on the matter of billing & will (reluctantly) review the billing record himself. he says he expects to make “some reductions,” likely on the basis of hours billed for issues the plaintiffs lost on.
anyway, i know this has all been intensely dry and procedural. i’m acutely aware of that, having spent three days sitting in court hearing the driest most procedural bullshit imaginable.
the short story is: the people who sued the city of charlottesville to force us to keep the confederate monuments won & they’re gonna win some money, too.
for all their pissing and moaning about the couple thousand taxpayer dollars spent on tarps they sure aren’t troubled by asking for hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for this litigation!
