Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWilliam Groth / Peter PalmerUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION REV. CLEVELAND WILLIAMS, REV. DOUGLASS L. MOTLEY, HARRY H. WILDER, and the CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA, Plaintiffs, THE JEFFERSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL; and DENNY FRANTZ, LES MERKLEY, RON ELLIS, ROB WAIZ, BARBARA WILSON, RON GROOMS, and VICKI CONLIN, each' in their official capacities as members of the JEFFERSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL, Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, THE CLARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; and VICKI KENT HAIRE, DAVID LEWIS, and RAYMOND PARKER, each in their official capacities as CLARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE CLARK COUNTY ELECTION BOARD; and KEITH GROTH, JOHN MONTGOMERY, and MARGIE JENKINS in their official capacities as the CLARK COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, Third Party Defendants, and GARY LEAVELL, Intervening Defendant, ENTERED JUL $1 ?_0O3 U.S. CLERK'S OFFICE INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA CAUSE NO. 4:03-cv-0002 DFH JUDGMENT AWARDING ATrORNEY FEES AND COSTS The court having this day granted plaintiffs' petition for an award of attorney fees and costs, it is hereby ORDERED~ ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the City of Jeffersonville pay to attorney William R. Groth the sum of Nineteen Thousand and Five Dollars ($19,005.00) and to attorney Peter D. Palmer the sum of Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-nine Dollars and 50 Cents ($16,339.50). Date: July 31, 2003 DAVID F. HAMILTON, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana -2- Copies to: Peter D. Palmer Schad & Schad 157 East Main Street New Albany, Indiana 47150 William R. Groth Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe 1213 North Arlington Avenue Suite 204 Indianapolis, Indiana 46219 Anne Marie Galligan City-County Building, 4th Floor 501 East Court Avenue Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 John R. Vissing Vissing Read Grays0n & Renn 432 East Court Avenue P.O. Box 187 Jeffersonville, IN 47131-0187 R. Scott Lewis 530 East Court Avenue Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Gary L. Leavell P.O. Box 783 Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 -3- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUI~ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DI~ISION REV. CLEVELAND WILLIAMS, REV. DOUGLASS L. MOTLEY, HARRY H. WILDER, and the CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE~ INDIANA, Plaintiffs, Vo THE JEFFERSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL; and DENNY FRANTZ, LES MERKLEY, RON ELLIS, ROB WAIZ, BARBARA WILSON, RON GROOMS, and VICKI CONLIN, each in their official capacities as members of the JEFFERSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL, Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, ENTERED JUL 3 1 ~003 U.S. CLERK'S OFFICE INDIANAPOLIS INDIANA CAUSE NO. 4:03-cv-0002 DFH THE CLARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; ) and VICKI KENT HAIRE, DAVID LEWIS, and RAYMOND PARKER, each in their official capacities as CLARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE CLARK COUNTY ELECTION BOARD; and KEITH GROTH, JOHN MONTGOMERY, and MARGIE JENKINS in their official capacities as the CLARK COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, Third Party Defendants, and GARY LEAVELL, Intervening Defendant. ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR AT'FORNEY FEES AND COSTS After the deffersonville City Council failed to comply with its constitutional and statutory obligation to draw new election districts of equal size in 2002, plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to obtain relief from the unconstitutional dilution of their votes. On February 19, 2003, this court entered a permanent injunction in plaintiffs' favor establishing new districts for the election of City Council members in the City of Jeffersonville. As prevailing parties, plaintiffs then ~ed a petition for attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The fee provision of§ 1988 was adopted in 1976 to ensure that httorneys would be willing to provide representation in cases like this one, which vindidated federal constitutional rights but did not generate any substantial monetary award that might be used to compensate a lawyer for his or her efforts. Plaintiffs' petition uses the "lodestar" method that begins by multiplying the attorneys' reasonable hours by their reasonable hourly rates. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Plaintiffs seel~ fees based on 64 hours for Peter Palmer at $215 per hour, and 65.1 hours for William R. Groth at $250 per hour, plus $150 in costs (for the filing fee). The total of hours include 18 hours on the fee petition itself, which is thoroughly documented and well-supported. The defendants initially balked at the fee petition, and they sought and received several extensions of time to respond to the fee petition and to conduct -2- diScovery on the issue. Ultimately, though, the defendants allowed the last of those extensions to run without filing any 0i~jection. In the absence of objections, and after the court has reviewed the plaintiffs petition, the court views the requested hours and hourly rates as reasonable. The hours reflect "billing judgment" as expected under Henstey, see 461 U.S. at 434, and counsel have supported well their requested hourly rates. Plaintiffs also propose that their attorneys receive a 20 percent upward enhancement to the lodestar amount for the work they did prior to entry of the Permanent injunction (and thus excluding their work on the fee petition itseli). Ddfendants have not objected to the enhancement, or to any other aspect of the fee petition. The court is satisfied that the proposed enhancement is both reasonable and necessary in this case. The court may not increase the lodestar rates based on the contingent nature of any fee recovery. City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557,567 (1992). However, the court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward based on the factors derived from Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717- 19 (5th Cir. 1974). See People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 90 F.3d 1307. 1310-11 & n. 1 (7th Cir. 1996). Those factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to -3- perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is f~xed or contingent; {7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtakned; {0) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (1 O) the "undesirability" of the case; {11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Id. at n. 1, citing S. Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong.2d Sess. 6 (1976), and Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express,. 488 F.2d at 717-19. .Both the Sup[eme Court and the Seventh Circuit have cautioned that those Johnson factors are usually accounted for by the lodestar hours and rates themselves. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 n.9; People Who Care, 90 F.3d at 1310-11. As a result, courts apply a strong presumption that the lodestar amount is a reasonable fee in any given case. A court should explain why any of these factors support an enhancement in a particular case. The exceptions in this case are the seventh factor, the time limitations imposed by the circumstances here, and the eighth factor, the results obtained in a highly efficient manner. Most significant is the unusual speed with which plaintiffs' counsel were required to prepare and try this case. The case did not even become ripe until the Jeffersonville City Council missed the statutory deadline of November'8. 2002 for redistricting. Plaintiffs contacted counsel in December 2002, and they filed this -4- action swiftly on January 6, 2003. The case was tried on the merits on February 12, 2003, with a fmal decision a week'later. That speed required that plaintiffs' attomeys put aside other matters and give this case unusual priority. In the private market for attorneys, such time demands are recognized as a basis for charging what is sometimes called premium billing or a premium rate. Under JohnSon and .its many progeny, such demands are also recognized reasons for adjusting the lodestar upward. Cf. Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 896 F.2d 927, 935 (5th Cir. 1990) (recognizing "that an attorney may charge a premium for taking on a case at the last minute," but reversing such premium "for a last minute entry into a case in which no class was certified for its fn-st two years and is now sixteen years old"), modified on rehearing on other grounds, 903 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1990). Tt{e rates of $250 for Mr. Groth and $215 for Mr. Palmer are reasonable for their customary work, but those rates do not reflect the demands placed upon them by the unusual urgency of this case. A modest enhancement is therefore needed to award a reasonable fee. Second, plaintiffs' counsel worked together with great efficiency, bringing to bear Mr. Groth's expertise and Mr. Palmer's familiarity with deffersonville and Clark County to produce a complete success in the lawsuit two months after they were £~rst contacted. The court fmds that these factors together warrant a 20 percent upward adjustment in the fees for work done on the merits 'of the case, before the fee petition was prepared. -5- Accordingly, the court awards plaintiffs 819,005.00 for Mr. Groth's fee, $16,189.50 for Mr. Palmer's fee, and $150 in costs paid by Mr. Palmer. A separate judgment to that effect shall be entered. The party responsible for paying the fees and costs is the City of Jeffersonville, for the City COuncil's failure to comply with its constitutional and statutory obligation to draw new districts caused the need for the court remedy in this case. There is no basis for ordering any other party to bear these expenses. See generally Herbst v. Ryan, 90 F.3d 1300, 1304-06 (7th Cir. 1996) (affirming fee award against only state officials where state was responsible for unconstitutional legislation). The court recognizes that an award of more than 835,000 imposes a burden on the citizens of Jeffersonville. That burden is the inevitable result, however, of the City Council's fafl{~re to resolve the political deadlock over new districts. So ordered. Date: July 31, 2003 DAVID F. HAMILTON, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana -6' Copies to: Peter D. Palmer Schad & Sehad 157 East Main Street New Albany, Indiana 47150 William R. Groth Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe 1213 North Arlington Avenue Suite 204 Indianapolis, Indiana 46219 Anne Marie Galligan City-County Building, 4th Floor 501 East Court Avenue Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 John R. Vissing Vissing Read Grayson & Renn 432 East Court Avenue P.O. Box 187 Jeffersonville, IN 47131-0187 R. Scott Lewis 530 East Court Avenue Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Gary L. Leavell P.O. Box 783 Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 -7-