My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000-030 Ordinance
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Legislation
>
2000
>
2000-030 Ordinance
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2014 4:11:12 PM
Creation date
12/30/2013 9:18:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Number
2000-030
Legislation Date
3/21/2000
Year
2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />ORDINANCE NO. 2000-30 <br />BY.• COUNCILMEMBER GAREAU <br />AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF LAW <br />TO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF HILARY S. TAYLOR OF THE <br />LAW FIRM OF WESTON HURD FALLON PAISLEY & <br />HOWLEY L. L. P., TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF NORTH <br />OLMSTED IN THE CASE OF NORTH OLMSTED CHAMBER <br />OF COMMERCE v. CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED, UNITED <br />STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF <br />OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, CASE NO 1:98 CV 0810, AND <br />DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. <br />WhIEREAS, in the case of North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce v. City of North Olmsted, <br />United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Case No. 1: 98 CV <br />0810, there remains for adjudication at least two significant matters: first, the Motion of the North <br />Olmsted Chamber of Commerce, and the individual Plaintiffs in this action, for Partial Payment of <br />Attorney Fees and Costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and secondly, the Plaintiffs' claim that the <br />City retaliated against them and others for engaging in conduct protected by the First Amendment <br />to the United States Constitution; and <br />WHEREAS, the Director of Law has, as authorized and directed by this Council, attempted <br />to resolve said remaining claim and motion for attorney fees by engaging in settlement dialogue <br />with counsel for the Plaintiffs; and <br />WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have rejected the City's proposal to comprehensively settle the <br />remaining retaliation claim and all claims relating to reimbursement of attorney fees and costs under <br />the federal statute; and <br />WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees presents complicated issues of law <br />and fact under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which warrant the retention of special counsel <br />to assist the Director of Law; and <br />WHEREAS, Hilary S. Taylor, Esq., of the Law Firm of Weston Hurd Fallon Paisley & <br />Howley, L.L.P. emphasizes his practice in the field of federal civil rights action defense, and is an <br />extremely knowledgeable and expert practitioner in the subfield of § 1988 fee litigation; and <br />WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Director of Law that this Council, pursuant to <br />its authority under Article V, Section 2 of the City Charter, authorize him to retain the services of
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.