Attorney asks for $58k in Masontown suit
The attorney for the president of Masontown Borough Council asked a federal judge for nearly $60,000 in legal fees associated with the lawsuit he filed against the borough.
The suit brought by attorney Charity Grimm Krupa on behalf of John and Rose Stoffa settled earlier this month for $20,001. Court documents indicate that the settlement cannot be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the borough or borough defendants, nor as an admission that the Stoffas have suffered any damages as a result of the allegations in the case.
Grimm Krupa’s motion seeks $58,369 based on an hourly rate of $325. She cited that as the average billing rate for an attorney in such matters.
The Stoffas sued last year, claiming they were targeted by borough officials and police after John Stoffa, as a member of borough council, voiced his concerns that borough officials and police engaged in corrupt and unethical actions.
The suit alleged the police department retaliated against John Stoffa by misleading a magisterial district judge so that he would sign off on a search warrant for the home on Jan. 18, 2018, where personal belongings including computers, hard drives, photos and a storage device were seized.
Grimm Krupa filed a separate motion to destroy copies of the evidence that was seized from the home.
While all of the physical property seized from the Stoffas’ home has been returned, the defendants in the case have maintained electronic and paper copies of the information downloaded from the Stoffas’ seized electronic devices, including a large amount of information from a cellphone, she wrote.
“As judgment has been entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants, defendants have no right to keep any copy of the plaintiffs’ property as it was illegally seized,” she wrote, requesting that the defendants destroy all of the seized information.
As to her motion for attorney fees, Grimm Krupa said she excluded fees like numerous phone conferences and emails with her clients, after-hours work on the case during the property seizure, presenting a motion in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas and other associated costs.
U.S. District Judge Peter J. Phipps will make a ruling on the motions at a later date.