Reply brief argues plaintiffs still cannot identify precedent overcoming qualified immunity
Judge to decide if Sucette plaintiffs must pay additional $45K in legal fees
Motion claims lawsuit interfered with Zuckerman’s official duties during re-election bid
NEW ORLEANS — The developers behind the failed Sucette Harbor project are urging a federal judge to deny a renewed request for attorneys’ fees filed by Mandeville Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, arguing their civil rights lawsuit was not frivolous even though it was dismissed.
In a Feb. 24 opposition, Woodward Harbor LLC asked U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long to reject Zuckerman’s motion for $42,926.18 in attorneys’ fees and $2,321.87 in costs, contending the claims were brought in good faith and were supported by facts surrounding the City Council’s denial of the proposed development. 
Background:
– Woodward Motion in Opposition to Fees Request (Feb. 24)
– Zuckerman/City Reply Motion (March 2)
– City, Zuckerman seek $277K from Sucette developers after lawsuit dismissal
– Judge dismisses all Sucette Harbor lawsuits, orders sanctions hearing over fake case citations
Zuckerman and the City of Mandeville filed a reply March 2 asserting the plaintiffs’ claims against him in his individual capacity were “frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation” because they failed to identify any clearly established constitutional right that would overcome qualified immunity. 
The reply brief emphasizes that nearly a year after the court dismissed the claims at the Rule 12 stage, the plaintiffs still have not cited controlling precedent that would have placed the alleged violation “beyond debate,” the standard required to defeat qualified immunity. The defendants argue that suing a public official personally without such precedent renders the claims legally unsupported from the outset.
Woodward Harbor, in its opposition, argues that losing on qualified immunity does not automatically render a lawsuit frivolous under federal fee-shifting standards. The developers cite prior cases in which courts declined to award fees to prevailing defendants, stressing that unsuccessful claims are not necessarily groundless.
The defendants also challenge Woodward’s assertion that it was required to file suit within 30 days under the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance, arguing that provision instead governs administrative appeals, not federal litigation.
In addition, the reply brief argues that naming Zuckerman individually served no legal purpose because any recovery could have been obtained from the city itself. The defendants contend the personal-capacity claims were filed during a contested municipal election cycle in which Zuckerman ultimately secured one of two at-large council seats with 33% of the vote, narrowly ahead of a challenger who received 31%. They argue the lawsuit interfered with his official duties and should not result in additional costs to taxpayers.
Judge Long has not yet ruled on the renewed motion for attorneys’ fees.
-30-
