LAUFER v. KRISHNA LLC, No. 4:2020cv00194 - Document 21 (M.D. Ga. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 11/15/2021 (esl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LAUFER v. KRISHNA LLC Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION DEBORAH LAUFER, * Plaintiff, * vs. * KRISHNA, LLC, * Defendant. CASE NO. 4:20-CV-194 (CDL) * O R D E R Plaintiff brought this action against Krishna, LLC for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (“ADA”). The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The ADA permits the Court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation Plaintiff. expenses, and costs 42 U.S.C. § 12205. to a prevailing party like Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to fees and costs in the amount of $5,622.50. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 20) is granted to the extent that Plaintiff is awarded $3,655.00 in fees and costs. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for violating Title III of the ADA. adequately served Plaintiff presented evidence that she Defendant. Defendant did not answer or Dockets.Justia.com otherwise respond. judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion for default Defendant did not move to set aside the default or respond to the motion for default judgment. By its default, Defendant admitted that Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, Defendant owns and operates a place of public accommodation (a hotel), Plaintiff intended to travel to Georgia and searched online for hotels for the trip, the online reservation websites Defendant uses did not permit Plaintiff to understand the accessible room. factual hotel’s accessibility The allegations Court features concluded established that that or reserve these Defendant an admitted discriminated against Plaintiff within the meaning of the ADA. Laufer v. Krishna LLC, No. 4:20-CV-194 (CDL), 2021 WL 4765496, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 12, 2021). for default Thus, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion judgment and ordered Defendant to bring its reservations websites into full compliance with the ADA and its implementing regulations. Plaintiff then filed the present motion for attorney’s fees and costs. DISCUSSION The ADA permits a court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs to the prevailing party. 42 U.S.C. § 12205. Plaintiff, who obtained injunctive relief against Defendant, is a prevailing party and may thus receive an award of reasonable attorney’s and 2 costs. fee “The first step in calculating a reasonable attorney’s award is to determine the ‘lodestar’—the product of multiplying reasonable hours expended times a reasonable hourly rate.” Rodriguez v. Molina Healthcare Inc., 806 F. App’x 797, 802 (11th Barnes, Cir. 168 2020) F.3d 423, (per 427 curiam) (11th (quoting Cir. ACLU 1999)). of There Ga. v. is “a ‘strong presumption’ that the lodestar is the reasonable sum the attorneys deserve.” Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 1348, 1350 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). the burden of establishing “The fee applicant bears entitlement appropriate hours and hourly rates.” and documenting the Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988). Here, Plaintiff seeks to recover attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,782.50 for 8.9 hours of work by attorney Tristan Gillespie. The Court reviewed Gillespie’s timesheet and finds that 8.9 hours is reasonable for counsel’s work on this case. The next question is whether the requested rate of $425.00 per hour is reasonable. “A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably Norman, 836 comparable F.2d at skills, 1299. experience, Plaintiff and bears reputation.” “the burden of producing satisfactory evidence that the requested rate is in line with prevailing market rates.” 3 Id. Here, “the ‘relevant market’ for purposes of determining the reasonable hourly rate for an attorney’s services is” Columbus, Georgia because that is where the case was filed. ACLU of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 437 (11th Cir. 1999). Gillespie has been practicing law since 2006 and claims an hourly rate of $425 per hour. Gillespie is based in Johns Creek, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta, and Plaintiff seems to be seeking to recover Atlanta rates in this Columbus action. her motion, claimed $400 District of Plaintiff per points hour Georgia in and a out that recent that Gillespie case clients before of other In successfully the Northern lawyers in Gillespie’s firm have been awarded rates of $425 in the Southern District of Florida. But Plaintiff did not establish that she is entitled to Atlanta rates. in line with the market A reasonable rate is one that is rate, which “means the hourly rate charged in the local legal market by someone with expertise in the area who is willing and able to take the case, if such an attorney exists.” Barnes, 168 F.3d at 437. “If a fee applicant desires to recover the non-local rates of an attorney who is not from the place in which the case was filed, [s]he must show a lack of attorneys practicing in that place who are willing and able to handle h[er] claims.” Id. (concluding that the district court “clearly erred in awarding non-local rates without finding that the plaintiffs had carried their burden of showing there 4 were no attorneys” in the relevant market who could handle their claims). Here, Plaintiff posits that there are few lawyers that litigate Title III ADA claims, but she did not point to any evidence that there were no Columbus attorneys who could have handled her case. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover Atlanta rates. Plaintiff also did not present any evidence of the prevailing Columbus market rate for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation. The Court recently approved an hourly rate of $400 per hour in a Fair Labor Standards Act for a Columbus attorney with twentythree years of experience. Smith v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-80 (CDL), 2021 WL 5141864, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2021). The Court also approved an hourly rate of $285 for an attorney with eight years of experience. Id. at *2. Based on the evidence discussed in Smith, along with the Court’s experience and judgment, a reasonable hourly rate in an ADA case like this one for a Columbus, Georgia attorney with fifteen years of experience is $350 per hour. Plaintiff shall recover at billed this rate for the 8.9 hours Accordingly, the lodestar is $3,115.00. that amount. 5 by Gillespie. Plaintiff shall recover In addition to her fee request, Plaintiff seeks $1,840.00 in costs. The $400 filing fee and the $140 service fee are recoverable as costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Plaintiff also seeks to recover an “expert witness fee” for her investigator, who apparently completed a double-checked compliance Plaintiff’s review of work Defendant’s websites but before Plaintiff filed this action. after she reservation See Am. Compl. ¶11, ECF No. 10 (alleging that Plaintiff conducted compliance reviews of Defendant’s websites). Plaintiff did not explain why it was necessary to hire an investigator to confirm the work that she did herself, and she did not explain why the investigator’s pre-suit investigation should be considered an expert witness fee. Court likewise The Court thus declines to award it. declines investigation” fee. to award the “anticipated The follow-up In sum, Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs in the amount of $540.00 CONCLUSION As discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 20) is granted to the extent that the Court awards Plaintiff fees and costs in the amount of $3,655.00. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of November, 2021. s/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
