BETA UPSILON CHI UPSILON CHAPTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA v. MACHEN et al

Filing 320

ORDER re 295 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Nontaxable Expenses filed by Plaintiffs is GRANTED IN PART and Denied in part. Parties to confer and Plas shall file a motion setting forth an amount agreed by the Parties. If unable to agree, Plas file motion and Defs file response w/n 14 days. (Motions due by 8/15/2012.). Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 7/24/2012. (jws)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
BETA UPSILON CHI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO.: 1:07-CV-135-SPM/GRJ

J. BERNARD MACHEN, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees
and Nontaxable Expenses and Supporting Memorandum of Law (doc. 295),
Defendants’ response (doc. 299), and Plaintiff’s reply (doc. 310).
This Court previously denied Plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit entered an Order (doc. 288) indicating that an
administrative panel of that court “had granted, in the form of an injunction pending
appeal, the relief the district court had denied them.”1 The Appellate court went on to
find that Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties under § 1988 and were therefore entitled
to a reasonable attorney’s fee. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and
nontaxable expenses will be granted in part, to the extent that Plaintiffs are entitled to

1

This Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction pending appeal
in the Order at docket entry 138.

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for work performed in this Court on Plaintiffs’
motion for injunction pending appeal. The application will otherwise be denied.
Plaintiffs have sought attorney’s fees for all of the work performed in this Court –
not just the work performed on the request for an injunction pending appeal.
Previously, Plaintiffs also went to the Eleventh Circuit seeking fees for all of the work
performed in that Court (after the appellate court dismissed its appeal for mootness).
However, the Eleventh Circuit determined that Plaintiffs were only entitled to fees for
work performed on the injunction pending appeal (doc. 235). The Eleventh Circuit
transferred the matter to this Court for the purpose of determining a reasonable
attorney’s fee. Ultimately, the parties agreed on an award in the amount of $7,081.44.
This Court finds no reason to handle this matter any differently from the Eleventh Circuit
and determines that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees for the work
performed in this Court on the motion for an injunction pending appeal. Accordingly, it
is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and nontaxable expenses (doc. 295)
is granted in part, to the extent that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable
attorney’s fees for work performed in this Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for
injunction pending appeal. The application is otherwise denied.

2.

The Parties are directed to confer within fourteen days regarding a
reasonable amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to Plaintiffs and shall
attempt to agree upon an amount.

3.

On or before August 15, 2012, Plaintiffs shall file a motion setting forth the
2

amount agreed upon by the Parties. If the Parties are unable to reach an
agreement, Plaintiffs shall file a motion for an amount of attorney’s fees
for work performed in the District Court on the motion for injunction
pending appeal, to which the Defendants shall have fourteen days to
respond.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2012.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
Senior United States District Judge

3