Groover v. Broward County Sheriff et al

Filing 276

ORDER Granting 274 Motion for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 8/21/2019. See attached document for full details. (ar2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE No. 15-cv-61902-BLOOM/Valle
JEFFREY EMIL GROOVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRISONER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC
and U.S. CORRECTIONS, LLC.
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Pro Bono Counsel’s Application for Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses, ECF No. [274] (the “Motion). To date, no response to the Motion has been
filed and the deadline to do so has passed. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has set forth a policy
for reimbursement of legal expenses in cases handled pro bono (hereafter, the “Assistance with
Litigation Expenses Policy”).1 The Court’s website sets forth the Assistance with Litigation
Expenses Policy:
General Policy: The Court encourages members of the Federal Bar to represent
parties in civil actions who cannot afford legal counsel, and to bear the costs of that
representation where possible. Where resources are limited, counsel who undertake
pro bono representation at the Court’s request may apply for expense
reimbursement. Total reimbursement in any case shall not exceed $7,500 absent
exceptional circumstances. All approvals and reimbursements will be based on a
funds-available basis. Therefore, there is no guarantee of reimbursement and
counsel is urged to use all reasonable means necessary to keep expenses to a
minimum.

1

Assistance with Litigation Expenses (Pro Bono), Volunteer Opportunities & Pro Bono Assistance, U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/assistance-litigationexpenses-pro-bono (last visited August 21, 2019).

CASE No. 15-cv-61902-BLOOM/Valle
Reimbursement Process: Reimbursement normally will be made at the conclusion
of the case by Motion. A request for reimbursement should be itemized and
submitted to the Judge presiding over the case as a Motion. Once approved by the
Judge, the payment authorization must be submitted via email to the Clerk of Court
at [e-mail]. Interim Requests for Reimbursement will
be entertained by Motion prior to the conclusion of the case only on demonstrated
need. In that circumstance, expenses should be grouped rather than submitted as
individual items piecemeal.
Return of Funds. In the event of an award of attorney’s fees or costs to pro
bono counsel, the Court may order return of any reimbursements from the
award. In addition, if any expenses are reimbursed or paid by any source other than
the client or the pro bono counsel (for example, paid through settlement), the
amount of funds reimbursed under this program will be returned forthwith.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Groover filed his Complaint pro se and was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. ECF Nos. [1] and [4]. Upon the Court referring the case to the District’s Volunteer
Attorney Program, ECF No. [20], attorney Frank S. Hedin (“Counsel”) agreed to represent Mr.
Groover on a pro bono basis and filed a notice of appearance, ECF No. [28]. Counsel seeks
reimbursement of $17,933.43 in expenses relating to his pro bono representation of Mr. Groover.
Plaintiff Groover filed his action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against Prisoner Transportation Services, LLC, U.S. Corrections LLC, and John Does 1-100
alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Amended Complaint, Groover,
an inmate at the Butner Low Security Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina,
alleged that U.S. Corrections, LLC transported him from Butner, North Carolina to Fort
Lauderdale, Florida in a windowless transport van lacking sufficient ventilation and air
conditioning. Groover claimed that he was deprived of sleep, water, and refuge from the heat. As
a result of the excessively hot conditions and lack of adequate ventilation in the van, Groover
experienced physical and emotional injuries. Groover claimed that the Defendants knew of the
conditions to which he was subjected and failed to take appropriate measures. Groover alleged that
numerous other pretrial detainees transported by the Defendants suffered similar inhumane
2

CASE No. 15-cv-61902-BLOOM/Valle
conditions and harm as a result of their transportation practices, violating his and other pretrial
detainees’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Groover thereafter asked the Court to certify
the action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). The
litigation and the record in the case are extensive.
Counsel argues that exceptional circumstances exist warranting reimbursement of
expenses exceeding $7,500.00. Counsel volunteered over 1,000 hours of time representing
Groover. Counsel took and defended more than 15 depositions, briefed multiple motions with
complex legal issues, attended multiple court hearings, traveled regularly to meet with Mr.
Groover, and ultimately negotiated a resolution of Groover’s claims. Counsel provided excellent
and thorough representation in a case that was exceptionally time-consuming. The Court agrees
that the nature and scope of the claims in the case and the amount of work performed by Counsel
constitute “exceptional circumstances.” Accordingly, reimbursement of costs in excess of
$7,500.00 is warranted.
Regarding the claimed expenses, Counsel submitted an itemized table of expenses
incurred, as required by the Assistance with Litigation Expenses Policy. See ECF No. [274-1].
However, the Assistance with Litigation Expenses Policy provides no guidance regarding what
claimed expenses may be reimbursed. The caselaw within this District on motions for
reimbursement of pro bono litigation expenses is limited and does not offer a framework for
determining what expenses are reimbursable.
Without the benefit of criteria to determine what constitutes a reimbursable expense, the
Court considers the overall purpose of the Assistance with Litigation Expenses Policy. The
Assistance with Litigation Expenses Policy does not expressly state its purpose. However, it can
easily be surmised that the salient purpose is to assist in the efficient administration of justice and
encourage skilled attorneys to volunteer their services to those who are unable to afford them. In
3

CASE No. 15-cv-61902-BLOOM/Valle
return, expenses are reimbursable so as not to be an insurmountable cost that would otherwise
discourage competent counsel. The Assistance with Litigation Expenses Policy does caution that
counsel are urged to use all reasonable means necessary to keep expenses to a minimum.
Other districts that have similar programs allowing for reimbursement of pro bono
counsel’s litigation expenses. In those jurisdictions, courts have recognized that such programs
encourage attorneys to volunteer pro bono services by reducing the potential financial burden of
taking on such cases. See, e.g., Lewis v. City of Albany Police Dep’t, 554 F. Supp. 2d 297, 301
(N.D. N.Y. 2008) (“Reimbursement for expenses encourages attorneys to volunteer for the
district’s pro bono panel by eliminating the possibility that pro bono appointees will incur out-ofpocket losses should the representation conclude unfavorably.”), aff’d, 332 F. App’x 641 (2d Cir.
2009); Gomez v. Hardie, No. 3:13-CV-00161-ST, 2013 WL 5346703, at *1 (D. Or. Sept. 23, 2013)
(“the financial burden to pro bono counsel may deter many lawyers from accepting an appointment
by the Court [to represent an indigent litigation], especially for sole practitioners or small firms.
Therefore, as an inducement to participate in the Pro Bono Program, the Court has authorized
reimbursement to pro bono counsel for out-of-pocket expenses in some situations.”); McCaa v.
Hamilton, 371 F. Supp. 3d 537, 540 (E.D. Wis. 2019) (explaining the shortage of attorneys
volunteering to take cases pro bono due to financial costs).
Those principles apply equally to the Southern District of Florida’s Assistance with
Litigation Expenses Policy. Therefore, to find guidance as to which expenses are properly
reimbursable, the Court looks to policies in other districts within the Eleventh Circuit. The Middle
District of Florida, the Northern District of Florida, and the Northern District of Alabama have
each established a plan for pro bono representation in civil cases.
The Northern District of Alabama’s “Plan for Pro Bono Counsel for Qualified
Unrepresented Parties in Civil Cases” states that “Counsel selected pursuant to this Plan may apply
4

CASE No. 15-cv-61902-BLOOM/Valle
to the Court for reimbursement of reasonable expenses as they are incurred in further of the
representation, or at the end of the representation.”2 The plan’s only criterion as to the type of
expenses that may be reimbursed is that the expenses must be “reasonable.”
The Northern District of Florida has established “The Federal Bench and Bar Fund” and
sets forth a non-exhaustive list of uses for expenditures from the fund.3 Pertaining to pro bono
expenses in civil cases, expenditures are permitted for “Court-approved payment or reimbursement
of expenses (e.g., for travel, depositions, copies, records) necessarily and reasonably incurred by
court appointed attorneys representing indigents in civil cases.”
The Middle District of Florida’s “Plan for Pro Bono Representation by Appointment in
Civil Cases” (the “Middle District’s Plan”) provides the most comprehensive and useful
framework for determining which claimed expenses are reimbursable.4 The Middle District’s Plan
furthers the goal of encouraging attorneys to take on cases on a pro bono basis by reducing the
possibility that counsel will incur out-of-pocket expenses should the representation conclude
unfavorably. The Middle District Plan provides guidance to counsel to use all reasonable means
necessary to keep expenses to a minimum. This Court adopts the standards for determining
reimbursable expenses from the Middle District’s Plan with slight modifications, as set forth below
and noted by way of footnotes.

2

Plan for Pro Bono Counsel for Qualified Unrepresented Parties in Civil Cases,
https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/Pro%20Bono%20Plan%20siged%20by%20Chief%20Judg
e%20Bowdre%20%28adopted%20by%20court%20Nov.%2018%2C%202016%29.pdf
(last
visited
August 21, 2019).
3

Plan for the Designation of Attorneys to Represent Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis Parties in Civil Cases,
http://www.flnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/14%20NDFL%20Final%20Pro%20Bono%20Volu
nteer%20Plan%20October%201%2C%202014.pdf (last visited August 21, 2019).
4

Plan
for
Pro
Bono
Representation
By
Appointment
in
Civil
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/forms/mdfl-plan-for-pro-bono-representation-byappointment-in-civil-cases.pdf.

5

Cases,

CASE No. 15-cv-61902-BLOOM/Valle
The Court will reimburse expenses for the preparation and presentation of the case to the
extent they are reasonable, necessary, and otherwise recoverable under this plan. The Court will
determine the appropriateness of reimbursements on a case-by-case basis. The following expenses
may be reimbursed:
1. Fees for the attendance of court reporters.
2. Fees for court hearing transcripts.5
3. Subpoena and service of process fees.6
4. Witness fees.
5. Expenses for deposition transcripts.
6. Expenses for investigation and the fees for an investigator up to $75 an hour.7
7. Expenses for an expert.
8. Expenses for travel (limited to lodging expenses and transportation expenses with
mileage at the rate for official government travel in effect during the travel).
9. Expenses for an interpreter.
10. Expenses for copying and printing up to $.10 a page unless electronic submission
of documents would have sufficed.
11. Expenses for delivery service unless electronic submission of documents would
have sufficed.

5

Fees for court hearing transcripts were not explicitly listed as reimbursable in the Middle District’s Plan.

6

Service of process fees were not explicitly listed as reimbursable in the Middle District’s Plan.

Expenses for investigation were not explicitly listed as reimbursable in the Middle District’s Plan. The
Middle District’s Plan allows for reimbursement of “Expenses for an investigator up to $75 per hour.”
7

6

CASE No. 15-cv-61902-BLOOM/Valle
12. Fees for public records, to the extent that they are not otherwise available through
discovery.8
13. Mediation fees.
14. Preapproved expenses for other items upon demonstrated good cause.
The following expenses may not be reimbursed:
1. Expenses for office overhead, including long-distance telephone calls, facsimile
transmissions, and secretarial expenses.
2. Computer-assisted research.
3. Expenses not ordinarily billed to a fee-paying client.
4. Expenses recovered through settlement.
5. Expenses not properly documented.
6. Expenses recovered after an award under the United States Code, the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, any contractual provision, or the like.
7. Expenses awarded against appointed counsel or the party represented by appointed
counsel.
8. Any fees incurred prior to pro bono counsel’s appearance in the case.9
9. Any expense associated with an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.
10. Attorney’s fees.
Here, Counsel submitted 31 itemized claimed expenses for reimbursement. All of the
claimed expenses fall into categories of expenses that may be reimbursed. Specifically, Counsel

8

The Middle District’s Plan is silent as to fees for public records.

This provision modifies the excluded expense in the Middle District’s Plan of “filing or service-of-process
fees already paid,” to clarify that counsel may only seek reimbursement for expenses that he or she has
incurred.
9

7

CASE No. 15-cv-61902-BLOOM/Valle
requests reimbursement of fees for the attendance of court reporters, fees for court hearing
transcripts, subpoena and service of process fees, witness fees, expenses for investigation,
expenses for an expert, expenses for travel, mediation fees, and fees for public records. Those
expenses total $17,933.43. The Court concludes that expenses in the amount $17,933.43 were
reasonable and necessary for the preparation of the case and are properly reimbursable to Counsel.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUGED as follows:
1. The Motion, ECF No. [274], is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk of Court is authorized to disburse payment of $17,933.43 to pro bono
Counsel as reimbursement for litigation expenses incurred by Counsel in
representing the Plaintiff in this action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 21, 2019.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

8