close

Judge awards attorney fees in suit lodged against Masontown, borough officials

2 min read
article image -

A federal judge awarded the attorney for a Masontown councilman who sued the borough more than $50,000 in legal costs and fees.

John and Rosa Stoffa sued the borough and other officials, claiming they were targeted by police after John Stoffa, a councilman, voiced his concerns about what he alleged were corrupt and unethical actions by some officers.

The couple, represented by attorney Charity Grimm Krupa, settled the suit earlier this year for $20,001.

In January, Krupa asked a federal judge to award her $61,697 in costs and legal fees. U.S. Judge Peter J. Phipps awarded her $53,858.

Phipps’ order, filed late last week, noted the borough’s attorney didn’t challenge Krupa’s hourly billing rate of $325. Instead, the attorney challenged whether the request for fees was reasonable, questioning whether some of the legal filings and other work done on the Stoffa case was necessary to litigate their claims.

Phipps found the hours Krupa spent on the case were reasonable, though he did not compensate her for 6.9 hours in fees after the Stoffas accepted the settlement.

He reduced the remaining amount requested by 10%, noting that some of the entries were vague and there was an “overbreadth of discovery sought.”

The suit, filed in 2018, 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 couple’s home. When the warrant was executed, the suit contended, personal belongings including computers, hard drives, photos and a storage device were seized.

Phipps denied a separate request to destroy any copies of the evidence that was seized from the Stoffas’ home.

While all of the physical property seized from the Stoffas’ home has been returned, Krupa contended borough officials maintained electronic and paper copies of the information downloaded from their seized electronic devices, including a large amount of information from a cellphone.

“The terms of the offer of judgment define the resolution of this dispute,” Phipps wrote. “The offer of judgment does not provide for the return of information allegedly illegally seized from plaintiffs, and therefore the judgment that resolved this case did not include such a term.”

Terms of the settlement indicated that it could not be construed as an admission of liability on the part of borough defendants nor an admission that the Stoffas suffered any harm.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $3.75/week.

Subscribe Today