OCA-Greater Houston et al v. State of Texas et al, No. 1:2015cv00679 - Document 93 (W.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 87 OCAs Motion for Post-Judgment Attorneys' Fees, Costs, andExpenses. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (lt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
xample, OCA devoted only 43 seconds at oral argument to the scope of relief. (Reply Mot. Att’y Fees, Dkt. 92, at 3). By the time of oral argument, moreover, the state had already substantially implemented the Court’s first injunction. (Id.). “[T]he most critical factor is the degree of success obtained.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436. On appeal, OCA prevailed on the issues that mattered a great deal to the success of their litigation and 4 lost on an issue that had a minor effect on the results of their litigation. OCA prevailed on the merits of the case and established the statutory violation they had argued throughout this action. OCAGreater Houston, 867 F.3d at 614–15. The revised injunction provides the relief sought by OCA throughout this litigation and gives effect to the statutory right they sought to vindicate. (See Order, Dkt. 84, at 7). It would be inequitable to reduce OCA’s fee award by 25 percent simply because the scope of injunctive relief was one of four issues on appeal. The four issues on appeal were not of equal weight. Because the scope-of-relief issue is distinct and separable from the other issues on appeal (rather than simply being an alternative basis for relief), it is appropriate to reduce OCA’s fee award for failing to prevail on that issue. See Allstate, 802 F.3d at 679. Moreover, because the narrower injunction directly influences the results OCA obtained, the Court should account for the narrowed injunction’s impact on OCA’s results in its fee award. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436–37. Because the narrower injunction’s effect on OCA’s results is slight, it is reasonable to reduce OCA’s fee award by a limited amount. The Court will reduce OCA’s postjudgment fee award by five percent. B. Reasonability of Hours OCA seeks $83,555 in attorney’s fees and $3,187 in costs. (Mot. Att’y Fees, Dkt. 87, at 3–6). In the Fifth Circuit, courts “first calculate the lodestar,” and then decide whether to “enhance or decrease it based on the twelve Johnson factors.”2 Combs v. City of Huntington, 829 F.3d 388, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2016). Among those factors, “the most critical factor” is the “degree of success obtained.” Id. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436). The lodestar, which “is presumed reasonable,” “is equal to the The twelve Johnson factors are: (1) “[t]he time and labor required;” (2) “[t]he novelty and difficulty of questions;” (3) “[t]he skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;” (4) “[t]he preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case;” (5) “[t]he customary fee;” (6) “[w]hether the fee is fixed or contingent;” (7) “[t]ime limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances;” (8) “[t]he amount involved and the results obtained;” (9) “[t]he experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys;” (10) “[t]he undesirability of the case;” (11) “[t]he nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;” and (12) “[a]wards in similar cases.” Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989). 2 5 number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the prevailing hourly rate in the community for similar work.” Combs, 829 F.3d at 392. “In calculating the lodestar, the court should exclude all time that is excessive, duplicative, or inadequately documented.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alternations omitted). OCA’s fee request represents a lodestar calculation using hourly rates that the Court has already determined to be reasonable and which Defendants do not contest. (See Order, Dkt. 73, at 6; Resp. Mot. Att’y Fees, Dkt. 89). Defendants contest only the number of hours for which compensation is requested; they argue that several hours are excessive and duplicative. (Resp. Mot. Att’y Fees, Dkt. 89, at 3–4). Specifically, they argue that the Court should not award OCA fees for four attorneys’ hours spent preparing for, traveling to, and participating in oral argument when only one OCA attorney argued the case and when Defendants sent only one attorney to the oral argument. (Id. at 4). Defendants also ask the Court not to award related costs for the same reasons. (Id.). The Court does not find the fees and costs related to the three attorneys who did not argue before the Fifth Circuit to be excessive or duplicative. The Court credits the averments of plaintiff’s counsel that these three attorneys were not merely “passive observers.” (Reply Mot. Att’y Fees, Dkt. 92, at 4 (quoting Resp. Mot. Att’y Fees, Dkt. 89, at 3)). It is common for a team of attorneys to prepare for oral argument, as there are obvious benefits to having multiple attorneys organize and refine an argument outline and to participate in mock arguments. (See Reply Mot. Att’y Fees, Dkt. 92, at 4). At oral argument, the additional attorneys assisted the principal attorney by taking notes of issues to be addressed on rebuttal. (Id.). The hours spent by these attorneys are reasonable and nonduplicative. Because the lodestar is presumed reasonable and Defendants offer no other objections, the Court will award OCA fees in the amount of the lodestar figure, adjusted downward by five percent to account for OCA’s partial success on appeal. 6 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, OCA’s Motion for Post-Judgment Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses, (Dkt. 87), is GRANTED. OCA is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable expenses in the amount of $82,564.93, which represents $79,377.25 in fees and $3,187.68 in costs. SIGNED on November 28, 2018. _____________________________________ ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7
]]>
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.
