Parks v. Bre/Sanibel Inn Owner L.L.C.

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Clerk shall enter judgment awarding reasonable attorney's fees in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $3,055.50, plus paralegal fees in the amount of $30, taxable costs in the amount of $465, and a total of $300 in expenses. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/8/2021. (RKR)

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 20 PageID 162

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

CLINTON
Individually,

PARKS,

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

Case No:

INN

2:20-cv-190-FtM-29NPM

Case No:

BRE/SANIBEL
L.L.C.,

2:20-cv-188-FtM-38NPM

2:20-cv-201-FtM-66MRM

OWNER

Defendant.

CLINTON
Individually,

PARKS,

Plaintiff,
v.
BRE/SONG
L.L.C.,

OF

THE

SEA

OWNER

Defendant.

CLINTON PARKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRE/SANIBEL
LLC,

BEACH

Defendant.

OWNER,

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 20 PageID 163

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Verified
Application for Attorney's Fees, Costs, Expert Witness Fees and
Litigation Expenses (Doc. #24) filed on August 27, 2020 in Case
No. 2:20-cv-188; plaintiff’s Verified Application for Attorney's
Fees, Costs, Expert Witness Fees and Litigation Expenses (Doc.
#25)

filed

on

August

24,

2020

in

Case

No.

2:20-cv-190;

and

plaintiff’s Verified Corrected Application for Attorney's Fees,
Costs, Expert Witness Fees and Litigation Expenses (With Exhibits)
(Doc. #28) filed on August 26, 2020 filed in Case No. 2:20-cv201. 1

Defendants filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition (Docs.

#25, #26, #29, respectively) on September 8, 2020, in all three
cases.
In the first case (2:20-cv-188), plaintiff seeks $6,090.00
for attorney’s fees, and paralegal fees of $103.50.

In the second

case (2:20-cv-190), plaintiff seeks $9,030.00 for attorney’s fees,
and paralegal fees of $115.

In the third case (2:20-cv-201),

plaintiff seeks $9,450.00 in attorney’s fees and $184.00 for
paralegal fees.

In all three cases, plaintiff seeks an hourly

rate of $420 an hour for attorney fees and an hourly rate of $115

1

As the fees were incurred contemporaneously in each of the
three cases by the same counsel under similar circumstances, the
undersigned is addressing the motions in all three cases with the
consent of the other district judges.

- 2 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 20 PageID 164

an hour for paralegal fees.

For the reasons set forth below, the

applications are granted in part and denied in part.
I.
On

Procedural History
March

19

and

20,

2020,

plaintiff

Clinton

Parks,

an

individual with disabilities, filed a Complaint (Doc. #1) against
each of the defendants: Bre/Sanibel Inn Owner LLC d/b/a Sanibel
Inn, Bre/Song of the Sea Owner, LLC d/b/a as Song of the Sea, and
Bre/Sanibel Beach Owner, LLC d/b/a as Sanibel Sunset Beach Resort
or Inn, LLC, all places of lodging in the Fort Myers Division (Lee
County, Florida).

Each property maintains an online reservation

service, or uses a third party to do so, which allows members of
the public to make reservations at the property.

The Complaints

allege that defendants violated Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to identify accessible rooms or
provide information as to whether the rooms or features at the
hotel are accessible.

Defendants filed Answers and Affirmative

Defenses (Docs. #11, #10, #8, respectively).

On July 20, 2020,

defendants notified the Court in each of the three cases that a
settlement

had

been

reached.

Thereafter,

in

August

2020,

plaintiff’s counsel filed Stipulations for Approval of Consent
Decree and Dismissal of Case With Prejudice in each of the three
cases.

The assigned district judges approved the Consent Decree

in each of the three cases, retained jurisdiction over enforcement

- 3 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 4 of 20 PageID 165

of

the

Consent

Decrees,

and

directed

the

entry

of

judgment.

Judgment has been entered, and the cases are otherwise closed.
The issue of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses was
not addressed, and plaintiff filed a motion for same in each of
the three cases.
II.

Entitlement to Fees, Costs, and Expenses

The relevant statute provides:
In any action or administrative proceeding
commenced pursuant to this chapter, the court
or agency, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing party, other than the United
States, a reasonable attorney's fee, including
litigation expenses, and costs, and the United
States shall be liable for the foregoing the
same as a private individual.
42 U.S.C. § 12205.

The parties agree that plaintiff is the

prevailing

each

party

in

action

and

is

entitled

to

recover

“reasonable” attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

The

determination of that reasonable amount was left to the Court.
III. Amount of Reasonable Attorney Fees
A reasonable attorney fee is calculated by multiplying the
number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).

The party seeking

an award of fees must submit adequate documentation of hours and
rates, or the requested award may be reduced.

- 4 -

Id.

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 5 of 20 PageID 166

A. Hourly Rate
A “reasonable hourly rate” is “the prevailing market rate in
the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of
reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation.”

Norman

v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.
1988). The prevailing market is the Fort Myers Division of the
Middle District of Florida, where the case was filed.
Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 437 (11th Cir. 1999).

ACLU v.

The burden is on the

fee applicant “to produce satisfactory evidence” that the rate is
in line with those prevailing in the community.

Blum v. Stenson,

465 U.S. 886, 896 n.11 (1984).
Plaintiff seeks an hourly rate of $420 per hour for attorney
Philip Michael Cullen III.

Mr. Cullen has been a solo practitioner

since 1980, practicing general civil litigation in state and
federal courts with an emphasis on labor and employment law.

Mr.

Cullen has been counsel of record in “literally hundreds of Title
III cases throughout Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Puerto Rico.”
(Motion, p. 5.)
familiarity

Mr. Cullen argues that Title III ADA cases require

with

issues

regarding

entitlement

to

injunctive

relief, Article III standing, barriers to access, exemptions, new
construction, whether remedial measures are ‘readily achievable’,
and relevant accessibility guidelines and other guides.
pp.

6-7.)

Counsel

argues

that

the

Southern

(Motion,

District

has

determined that $420 per hour is a reasonable fee for his services,

- 5 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 6 of 20 PageID 167

and the Southern District of Georgia has awarded counsel $400 per
hour in an ADA website case.

Counsel also argues that attorneys

Denise Wright and Richard Harrison, who defend ADA cases, charge
between $400 and $410 an hour, and attorney Daniel R. Levine
charges $450 an hour.

(Motion, pp. 9-10.)

In response, defendants argue that Mr. Cullen’s rate should
be $300 an hour as the customary hourly rate in the Middle District
of Florida in cases like this.
respectively.)

(Motion, p. 13, 14, or 15,

Defendants argue that the cases cited by plaintiff

were all unopposed motions or cases in which the defending party
failed to contest the requested hourly rate.

Further, defendants

argue that there were only one or two cases where the $420 an hour
was adopted, and none of the cases were in the Middle District of
Florida.

(Id., p. 13.)

Many of the cases on which Mr. Cullen relies are from outside
of

the

Fort

Myers

Division,

which

is

the

applicable

market.

Therefore, the Affidavit of Daniel R. Levine, a practitioner in
Boca Raton with a customary $450 hourly rate; the billing records
of Richard A. Harrison, a Tampa practitioner, showing a $400 hourly
rate; and

the

Affidavit

of

Farrell

A.

Hochmuth,

an

attorney

admitted in Texas on behalf of Simon Property Group reflecting a
$420 hourly rate for co-counsel Brian C. Blair (Motion, Exhs. C,
E, F) are not persuasive.

- 6 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 7 of 20 PageID 168

The prevailing hourly rate in the Fort Myers Division for an
attorney of Mr. Cullins’ experience in this type of case has been
$300 per hour in previous years.

See Kennedy v. Radio Road Plaza

Invs., LLC, 2:15-cv-630-FTM-29CM, Doc. #35 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 10,
2017); Kennedy v. Three J's L.L.P., No. 2:16-CV-214-FTM-38MRM,
2018 WL 1036989, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2018), report and
recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1010838 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2018);
Judy v. Edison Park Plaza Ctr., LLC, 2:18-cv-693-FTM-29UAM, Doc.
#27 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2019).

This is also consistent with other

divisions of the Middle District of Florida.

Kennedy v. Sun Coast

Motels, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-1688-T-30CPT, 2018 WL 6724759, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2018); Kennedy v. Bakrac, Inc., No. 8:18-CV2796-T-24AEP, 2019 WL 10734511, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2019)
Cf. Bell v. Mallin, No. 8:17-CV-2001-T-27AAS, 2019 WL 969815, at
*2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2019) (concluding that $350 is a reasonable
hourly rate for ADA litigators, and not $420).

The Court concludes

that a current reasonable rate for Mr. Cullen in a Title III ADA
case in the Fort Myers Division in 2021 is $315 an hour.
The normal hourly rate for a paralegal has been $95 in the
Middle District of Florida.

The Court concludes that a current

reasonable rate for a paralegal in a Title III ADA case in the
Fort Myers Division is $100.

- 7 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 8 of 20 PageID 169

B. Reasonable Number of Hours
The Complaint in each case is nearly identical.

Stipulations

for the entry of a consent decrees were filed almost simultaneously
in all three cases.

Mr. Cullen provided a Verification at the end

of the listed hours in each case that includes the following
statements:
I certify that I have fully reviewed the time
and expense records and removed any duplicate
entries and, where this case and the two other
cases identified in the motion involved one
entry otherwise chargeable to all three cases,
I either prorated the amounts or, where that
was not possible, for example, where the entry
was for 0.1 hours, I charged one account only.
The time records are accurate.
(Motion, Exh. B, p. 6.)

Nonetheless, the Court’s de novo review

establishes that some of the requested hours should be reduced
because it was non-attorney work that was billed, or the hours
were excessive given the task at issue or because of a duplication
in efforts in all three cases.

For example, the Court finds that

some of the “review” entries should be eliminated.

The case

settled before an ADA Fast-Track Scheduling Order could issue that
would have stayed discovery, except for responding to the Court’s
interrogatories and the disclosure of the expert report.

The

Court will allow some of the discovery entries for this reason,
but otherwise eliminate the hours for discovery requests that would
not have been permitted during the stay and in light of the swift
settlement never would have or never issued.

- 8 -

The Court agrees

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 9 of 20 PageID 170

that the double review of time records is excessive as the work on
the case spanned such a short period of time, and that the Court
must eliminate some time for “etc.” as an inadequate description
for billing purposes.
1. Case 20-cv-188
Mr. Cullen spent 14.5 hours on this case, with the paralegal
spending 0.9 hours on the case.

Defendant argues that the attorney

hours should be reduced to 6.9 hours, and the paralegal’s time
should

be

eliminated

specifically,

entirely.

defendants

argue

(Doc.
that

#25,

p.

certain

10.)
entries

More
are

unreasonable, redundant, duplicative, and/or clerical in nature.
(Id., pp. 7-10.)

This same argument is made and applicable to the

motions filed in the other two cases.
The following reductions shall apply to reduce the total
amount of hours to 9.7 hours:
3/12/2020
Sought
Review
of
preliminary 0.5
report
Review websites
0.9
3/13/2020
Review of PACER re: pending 0.1
litigation 2

2

Allowed
0.2
0.3
0

Defendants argue that the entries on March 13, 2020, are
clerical and should not haven billed by an attorney. Defendants
also argue that the entries are identical for each of the three
cases.
(Doc. #25, pp. 7-8.)
The Court finds that the review
would have occurred for each separate case as defendant entities
are not identical, and therefore the tasks are otherwise
reasonable.
However, the Court agrees that the entries are
clerical and therefore the entries will be reduced to zero.

- 9 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 10 of 20 PageID 171

Review
of
division
of
corporation’s records re:
resident agent
Review of county property
appraiser’s records
Review of DBR records
3/17/2020
Preparation
of
draft
complaint
Preparation of summons
E-mail to client re: same
3/19/2020
Review
of
executed
authorization 3
Prefiling PACER review
Preparation of cover sheet
Review of filed complaint
Review N/judge assignment
Review of issued summons
Preparation of spoliation
letter
E-mail to process server
with instructions
Preparation of N/related
case
Preparation of certificate
of interested persons
3/20/2020
Review of return of service
& calculation of response
time 4
3/25/2020
Review of Track Two Order
4/8/2020
Review of answer
4/10/2020
Review of ADA order

0.2

0

0.2

0

0.2

0

1.4

1.0

0.2
0.1

0.1
0.1

0.1

0

0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2

0
0.2
0
0
0
0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

3

Defendants argue that all entries are unnecessary or
clerical and should not be compensable. (Id., p. 8.) The Court
agrees that the “executed authorization” is non-specific and
should be eliminated, and it is unclear why another PACER review
is included. Both will be eliminated. The review entries will
also be eliminated.
4

The Court will reduce this entry as excessive.

- 10 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 11 of 20 PageID 172

e-mail to D re: ADA order &
retaining counsel
4/11/2020
Review of D N/appearance
Review of answer 5
4/15/2020
e-mail
to
client
re:
answers
to
court
interrogatories
4/18/2020
Review
of
e-mail
from
client re: answers to court
interrogatories
Preparation
of
draft
answers
to
court
interrogatories
5/1/2020
Review of signed answers to
court interrogatories
Preparation
of
N/filing
answers
6/5/2020
t/c w/ o/c re: various case
issues; e-mail to o/c w/
report
6/8/2020
Review of D N/appearance 2
Review of D M/additional
time
6/16/2020
Review
of
N/Judge
reassignment
7/10/2020
Preparation
for
&
participation in t/c w/ o/c
Review of e-mail from o/c
re: settlement
7/20/2020
Review of D N/settlement 6

0.1

0.1

0.2
0.2

0.1
0

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.5

0.5

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.1
0.2

0.1
0.2

0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

5

The Court agrees that this entry should be eliminated as
duplicative.
6

Defendants argue that this entry should be reduced as the
“document was two sentences long and is filed in nearly every
settled case in federal court.”
(Id., p. 9.)
The Court will

- 11 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 12 of 20 PageID 173

Review of order closing
case
7/27/2020
Preparation
of
draft
consent decree & e-mail to
o/c re: same 7
8/5/2020
Review of e-mail from o/c
re: consent decree; review
of consent decree & e-mail
to o/c re: same
8/7/2020
Review of fully executed
consent decree
Review of file & e-mail to
o/c re: fees (prorated)
8/10/2020
Review of e-mail from o/c
re: wording of final order
Preparation
of
revised
final order
Review of stipulation for
entry w/ consent decree &
proposed order & e-mail to
o/c re: same
Review of e-mail from o/c
approving final documents
8/18/2020
Review of final order
8/19/2020 8
8/20/2020 9
8/27/2020
Preparation of m/Attorney’s
Fees, etc. 10

0.1

0.1

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1
0
0

3.5

2.0

allow the entry.
7

Defendants argue that this entry should be reduced to 0.2
because it is a form entered in all three cases. (Id., p. 9.)
The Court agrees that the entry should be reduced.
It will be
reduced in half.
8

There was no charge for the entries on this date.

9

There was no charge for the entry on this date.

10

Defendant argues that the inclusion of “etc.” is vague and
therefore cannot be addressed as to its reasonableness. Further,
that the motion was boilerplate and applied for all three cases

- 12 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 13 of 20 PageID 174

TOTAL ATTORNEY TIME:

14.5

9.7

PARALEGAL 11

0.9

0.3

Applying the reduced hourly rate of $315 per hour to the
reduced number of hours (9.7), the Court will award attorney’s
fees in the amount of $3,055.50, and applying the reduced hourly
rate of $100 per hour to the reduced number of hours (0.3), the
Court will award paralegal fees in the amount of $30.00.
2. Case 20-cv-190
Mr. Cullen spent 21.5 hours on this case, and the paralegal
spent 1.0 hours on the case.

Defendant argues that the total

attorney hours should be reduced to 8.5 hours for various reasons,
and that the paralegal time should be eliminated entirely.

(Id.,

p. 11.)
Applying the same reasoning as applied to the first case, the
Court will reduce the review of the preliminary report and the
review

of

the

website,

while

eliminating

the

clerical

tasks

identified on 3/12/2020, leaving a total of .5 hours for this date.
(Doc. #26, p. 7.)

The Court will also reduce the hours for

and older cases. (Id., pp. 9-10.) The Court agrees that “etc.”
is an inadequate description for billing purposes, and therefore
the entry will be reduced for this reason, and because much of the
motion bears a striking similarity to the other two motions.
11

The paralegal set up the file (0.3), filed the case via
CM/ECF (0.3), and collated, scanned, & filed the fees motion (0.3).
Collating and scanning, and filing the case electronically are
clearly clerical tasks. Therefore, the Court will allow only 0.3
hours.

- 13 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 14 of 20 PageID 175

preparation

of

the

draft

complaint

to

preparation of the summons on 3/17/2020.

1.0,
(Id.)

and

to

.1

for

For the reasons

stated in footnote 3, the Court will eliminate review of executed
authorization and prefiling PACER review, and eliminate the two
review entries on 3/19/2020, leaving .2 for this date.

(Id.)

The

Court will permit the entries on 3/20/2020, except for the “review
of issued summons”.

The Court agrees that the “review of return

of service & calculation of response time” entry is excessive.
(Id., p. 8.)

It will be reduced to 0.1.

In this case, plaintiff

filed a motion for default and defendant argues that the motion
was a form motion.

(Id., p. 8.)

The Court will permit the hours

worked on the motion and for reviewing the answer and order on the
default as reasonable.

Counsel asks that the time be reduced for

drafting a Joint Scheduling Order as it is the Court’s Case
Management Report form and only requires filling in dates.

The

Court agrees that this may be reduced, and the time will be reduced
to .7.

(Id.)

The telephone conference with opposing counsel re:

scheduling and consolidation will be permitted as the addition of
“etc” in this entry appears to be superfluous.

The Court will

also permit all entries on 6/15/2020, 6/18/2020, and 6/22/2020
even though discovery would have been stayed by the entry of an
ADA Fast Track Scheduling Order, however it was delayed by the
pending default issue and did not issue before the parties settled
in July.

- 14 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 15 of 20 PageID 176

Defendant argues that the hours billed on 6/23/2020 should be
eliminated as counsel is well aware of how the Middle District of
Florida uses fast track procedures for cases brought under the
ADA, and the discovery requests for interrogatories, production,
and admissions would end up unnecessary.

(Id., pp. 8-9.)

Court agrees and will eliminate these hours.

The

The entries on

7/10/2020, 7/20/2020, and 7/27/2020 12 are reasonable and will be
permitted, as are the entries for August 8/4/2020, 8/5/2020, and
8/7/2020, which will also be permitted.

The Court will slightly

reduce the entry on 8/8/2020 to a total of .5, and the Court will
allow the time on 8/10/2020.

The Court will reduce the hours to

.1 for the review of time records & e-mail to /oc re: same on
8/14/2020 because a duplicate review of time records is listed on
8/24/2020, and the Court will further reduce the time to 3 for the
preparation of a motion for attorney’s fees on 8/24/2020 in light
of the “etc”, which may have included clerical work in separating
out duplicates for each of the three cases.
Applying the reduced hourly rate of $315 per hour to the
reduced number of hours (13.5), the Court will award attorney’s
fees in the amount of $4,252.50.

12

Defendants argue that this entry is excessive because the
consent decrees were boilerplate and used in all three cases. The
Court agrees, however the hours listed are reasonable to ensure
that changes are made to differentiate between cases.

- 15 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 16 of 20 PageID 177

Plaintiff also seeks hours for the paralegal.

Although

counsel asserts the paralegal expended 1.6 hours, Doc. #25, p. 6,
the billing records only reflect time for 1.0 hours, Doc. #25-2,
p. 5.

The paralegal set up the file (0.3), filed the case via

CM/ECF (0.3), and prepared the motion for fees, including document
collection collating and scanning (0.4).

It is unclear if the

“preparation” of the motion included activities beyond clerical
tasks of collating and scanning.
is clearly a clerical task.

Filing the case electronically

Therefore, the Court will allow 0.5

hours at a rate of $100 for the paralegal hours for a total of
$50.00.
3. Case 20-cv-201
Mr. Cullen spent 22.5 hours on this case, and the paralegal
spent 1.6 hours on the case.

Defendant argues that the total

attorney hours should be reduced to 7.3 hours for various reasons,
and that the paralegal time should be eliminated entirely.

(Doc.

#29, p. 12.)
Applying the same reasoning as applied to the first and second
cases above, the Court will eliminate the clerical entries on
3/14/2020 entirely, and on 3/11/2020 13 for review of executed
authorization

and

prefiling

PACER

review,

and

also

eliminate

entirely the unserved discovery requests on 6/24/2020 as the ADA

13

This date is out of order on the billing records.

#28-2.)

- 16 -

(Doc.

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 17 of 20 PageID 178

Fast-Track Scheduling Order (Doc. #17) issued on June 29, 2020,
and stayed all discovery outside of court interrogatories.

The

Court will also eliminate the entry on 7/6/2020 as defendant did
not file a response to the interrogatories.

The Court will reduce

the excessive hours for review of preliminary report to .3, the
review of defendant’s website to .2, the preparation of draft
complaint to 1.0, the preparation of summons to .1, review of
initial report & complaint & preparation of draft consent decree
to 1.0, the review of defendant’s Notice of Settlement to .1, the
review of an e-mail from opposing counsel regarding settlement &
attached documents to .4, the review of e-mail from opposing
counsel “re: consent decree; review of consent decree” to .2, work
on the motion for attorney’s fees to 1.5, and the revision of the
motion for attorney’s fees to 1.
eliminated as duplicative.

An entry on 8/19/2020 was also

The paralegal hours will be reduced

for the same reasons as stated for the first case leaving a total
of 0.3 hours.
Applying the reduced hourly rate of $315 per hour to the
reduced number of hours (12.5), the Court will award attorney’s
fees in the amount of $3,937.50, and applying the reduced hourly
rate of $100 per hour to the reduced number of hours (0.3), the
Court will award paralegal fees in the amount of $30.00.

- 17 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 18 of 20 PageID 179

IV.

Amount of Costs and Expenses

Plaintiff, as a prevailing party, “should be allowed” an award
of costs other than attorney’s fees under Rule 54 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).

The ADA

allows for recovery of costs as well as litigation expenses under
42 U.S.C. § 12205.
1. Taxable Costs
“[Title 28 U.S.C.] Section 1920 enumerates expenses that a
federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority
found in Rule 54(d).”

Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons,

Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987).

Section 1920 provides that the

Court may tax as costs the “Fees of the clerk and marshal”.
U.S.C. § 1920.

28

Defendants do not object to plaintiff’s request

for $465.00 in taxable costs for the filing fee and service of
process in any of the three cases.

This amount will be granted

for each of the cases.
2. Expenses
Plaintiff seeks $650 for expenses associated with hiring
Daniel

Pezza,

provided

a

the

ADA

Accessibility

re-investigation

Initial

report.

Investigator

(Motion,

who

“Exbibits”.)

Defendants note that the report is addressed to attorney Thomas
Bacon, and therefore the expense may have been incurred by another
attorney

and

should

not

be

reimbursed.

The

billing

records

contain a Verification that the expense records were reviewed.

- 18 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 19 of 20 PageID 180

Regardless of who the report was addressed to, the expense was
incurred by Mr. Cullen.

That being said, the report was mostly a

boilerplate copy and paste between the three cases and the expense
would

not

have

consolidated.

been

in

triplicate

if

the

cases

had

been

The expenses will be awarded, but reduced to a

total of $300 per case, or a total of $900 for all three reports.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's

Verified

Application

for

Attorney's

Fees,

Costs, Expert Witness Fees and Litigation Expenses (Doc.
#24) in Case No. 2:20-cv-188 is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in

part.

The

reasonable
against

Clerk

attorney’s

defendant

shall
fees

in

the

in

enter
favor

amount

of

judgment
of

awarding

plaintiff

$3,055.50,

and
plus

paralegal fees in the amount of $30, taxable costs in the
amount of $465, and a total of $300 in expenses.
2. Plaintiff's

Verified

Application

for

Attorney's

Fees,

Costs, Expert Witness Fees and Litigation Expenses (Doc.
#25) in Case No. 2:20-cv-190 is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in

part.

reasonable
against

The

Clerk

attorney’s

defendant

in

shall
fees
the

in

enter
favor

amount

of

judgment
of

awarding

plaintiff

$$4,252.50,

and
plus

paralegal fees in the amount of $50.00, taxable costs in
the amount of $465.00, and a total of $300 in expenses.

- 19 -

Case 2:20-cv-00188-SPC-NPM Document 26 Filed 01/08/21 Page 20 of 20 PageID 181

3. Plaintiff’s Verified Corrected Application for Attorney's
Fees, Costs, Expert Witness Fees and Litigation Expenses
(With Exhibits) (Doc. #28) in Case No. 2:20-cv-201 is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Clerk shall enter

judgment awarding reasonable attorney’s fees in favor of
plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $3,937.50,
plus paralegal fees in the amount of $30, taxable costs in
the amount of $465, and a total of $300 in expenses.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
January, 2021.

Copies:
Hon. Sheri Polster Chappell
Hon. John Badalamenti
Counsel of Record

- 20 -

8th

day of