KATHLEEN JONES, ET AL. v. GEORGE W. HAYMAN, ET AL. A-3173-09T3
In this appeal, we consider under what circumstances a plaintiff, who brings an action pursuant to statutes containing fee-shifting provisions, may be deemed a prevailing party under the catalyst theory when the underlying action is dismissed as moot without a final judicial determination on the merits of the case. Under Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 70-79 (2008), and as more recently reaffirmed and explained in our opinion in D. Russo, Inc. v. Township of Union, 417 N.J. Super. 384 (App. Div. 2010), in order to be awarded counsel fees under the catalyst theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a factual causal nexus between the litigation and the relief ultimately achieved; and (2) that the relief ultimately secured by plaintiff had a basis in law.
The trial court erred by accepting at face value the factual allegations and legal positions advanced by defendants in their certifications, without affording plaintiffs the opportunity to challenge the veracity of the allegations proffered in an evidentiary hearing. The "basis in law" prong should be construed as providing a check against groundless orharassing litigation, and in a manner that promotes the public policy underpinning fee-shifting statutes. 02-25-11
