Gulley v. Birmingham, City of et al

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 90 , MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Martez Gulley, is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that, for work done in this case, Gulley shall have and recover of Hooper the total sum of Forty One Thousand Five Hundred Nine and 87/100 Dollars ($41,509.87) as reasonable attorney's fees and reimbursement expenses to be paid to the law firm of Crew & Howell, P.C. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 09/27/12. (CVA)

FILED
2012 Sep-27 AM 09:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARTEZ GULLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICER COREY HOOPER,
individually and in his official
capacity,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number
2:09-cv-1709-AKK

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 27, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Martez
Gulley and against Defendant Officer Corey Hooper1 finding that Hooper
“violated the Plaintiff’s federal constitutional right not to be subjected to excessive
or unreasonable force during arrest.” Doc. 81. The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the verdict. Doc. 08. Gulley now seek attorney’s fees as the
prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Docs. 90, 107. After reviewing
Hooper’s response and Gulley’s reply, docs. 110, 111, the court GRANTS
Gulley’s motion for attorney’s fees.

1

The court dismissed Defendants the City of Birmingham, Chief of Police A.C. Roper,
and former Chief of Police Annetta Nunn on August 15, 2011. Doc. 33.
Page 1 of 5

Generally, to determine reasonable attorney’s fees, the “court must multiply
the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate . . . . After
determining the lodestar,2 the court may adjust the amount depending upon a
number of factors, including the quality of the results and representation of the
litigation.” Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1396 (11th Cir. 1996). The
appropriate “hourly rate” is “the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal
community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills,
experience, and reputation.” Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 125 F.3d
1387, 1389 (11th Cir. 1997). Although the “fee applicant bears the burden of
establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and hourly rates,”
the court “is itself an expert on [this issue] and may consider its own knowledge
and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an
independent judgment . . . as to value.” Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery,
836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

2

In determining the lodestar, the court applies the 12-factor test set forth in 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). These 12 factors are: (1) the time and labor
required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill required to perform the legal
services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of
the case; (5) the customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7)
time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results
obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the ‘undesirability’ of
the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12)
awards in similar cases. Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19.
Page 2 of 5

Hooper challenges Gulley’s motion on five grounds: that (1) the case was
not complex or voluminous, (2) Gulley’s attorneys performed no discovery, (2)
Gulley failed to disclose his fee arrangement, (3) Gulley’s attorneys failed to
distinguish their fees as related to the various defendants, (4) the hourly rate for
Gulley’s attorneys and their paralegal is unreasonable, and (5) Gulley’s attorneys’
work descriptions are inadequate. Doc. 110 at 1-2. The court disagrees with
Hooper’s contentions for several reasons. First, as a threshold matter, Gulley’s
lawyers in fact conducted discovery. See docs. 27,44. Second, the court notes that
this litigation lasted three years and included time spent on a three day trial and
Hooper’s appeal. Docs. 74, 75, 79-80. Moreover, Hooper and the other
defendants tried this case vigorously and challenged routine requests for
documents. See docs. 38, 47, 87. In fact, Hooper’s employer added to the
complexity and contentious nature by coming to the courtroom on the first day of
trial to arrest Gulley for a warrant the Department obtained against Gulley over six
months earlier. While the court has no reason to believe that Hooper played any
role in this decision, the court includes this incident here solely to point out the
contentious nature of this lawsuit and that the decision to execute the warrant at
trial caused Gulley’s counsel to take on additional issues and scramble to figure
out how best to proceed with their case. This incident further proves the difficulty
Page 3 of 5

involved in trying these sorts of cases and the undesirability of civil rights lawsuits
against a member of law enforcement.
Based on the undersigned’s overall knowledge and experience and direct
observations from this lawsuit, the time allocated to this case by Gulley’s counsel
is reasonable given the issues in this case and the fact that this litigation has
spanned three years. Moreover, the entry descriptions are adequate and consistent
with customary legal practices. Therefore, the court finds that a reasonable hourly
rate for Wendy Brooks Crew is $350.00 per hour in light of her 28 years of
experience, a reasonable fee for Alyson Hood-Rains is $150.00 per hour in light of
her competent assistance and two years of experience, and that a reasonable fee for
their paralegal is $95 per hour. Doc. 107-4 at 2. Crew and Hood-Rains expended
85.75 and 40.75 hours, respectively, exclusive of “hours spent by other staff of
Crew & Howell, P.C.” Id. Accordingly, the court finds that the Crew and Howell,
P.C. law firm has reasonably incurred $41,509.87 in expenses directly related to
the prosecution of this case.
As such, it is hereby ORDERED that, for work done in this case, Gulley
shall have and recover of Hooper the total sum of Forty One Thousand Five
Hundred Nine and 87/100 Dollars ($41,509.87) as reasonable attorney’s fees and
reimbursement expenses to be paid to the law firm of Crew & Howell, P.C.
Page 4 of 5

DONE the 27th day of September, 2012.

________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5