Miraglia v. Board of Directors of the Louisiana State Museum

Filing 119

ORDER granting 101 Motion for Attorney Fees as follows: Plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees totaling $30,050.25 and costs/expenses totaling $4,975.46. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/7/2017. (ajn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MITCHELL MIRAGLIA

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-4947

BD. OF SUPERVISORS OF LA. STATE MUSEUM, ET AL.

SECTION "A"(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Mitchell Miraglia’s Motion to Fix Attorney’s Fees,
Costs, and Expenses (Rec. Doc. 101). The Board of Directors of the Louisiana State
Museum and Robert Wheat in his official capacity as chief executive of the Louisiana
State Museum has filed a memorandum in opposition (Rec. Doc. 107). The motion,
submitted for consideration on November 1, 2017, is before the Court on the briefs
without oral argument.
This case was tried to the bench on September 11, 2017. On September 15,
2017, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff awarding Plaintiff general
damages of $500.00 under the ADA. (Rec. Doc. 100). The Court found that the remedy
of injunctive relief was moot under the principles of Buckhannon Board & Care Home,
Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001).
(Rec. Doc. 99 at 6).
The Court in its discretion may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s
15-4947 Miraglia v. Bd. of Directors of La. State Museum
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Rec. Doc. 101

Page 1 of 4

fee, including litigation expenses, and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 12205. It is undisputed that
Plaintiff was a prevailing party in this case. The Court is persuaded that an award of
fees, expenses, and costs is appropriate.
The lodestar method is appropriate for calculating a reasonable fee award. The
lodestar method is based on the number of hours worked multiplied by the prevailing
hourly rate. See Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542, 546 (2010). Enhancements or
reductions as appropriate can then be made. See id.
The Court finds the requested hourly rates to be reasonable: $275 for lead
attorney Andrew Bizer; $150 for attorney Garret DeReus; $125 for attorney Amanda
Klevorn; $100 for attorney James Daniel; $75 for a paralegal.1
The Court is persuaded that Plaintiff’s attorneys have provided adequate support
of the legitimate hours that they expended on this case. Given the significant deletions
and reductions that Plaintiff have documented, it is clear to the Court that counsel
followed the Court’s admonishments in the Mark case. The hours claimed are
commensurate with the fact that this case was litigated for two years and then tried on
liability and damages.
The Court finds the requested fees totaling $38,050.25 to be the reasonable fee
award under a straight lodestar calculation. The Court reduces that award by $8,000
because time was expended on non-starter issues such as the possibility of raising

1

Plaintiff requested these specific rates because the Court found these rates to be reasonable
for the same attorneys in 15-5977, Yadi Mark v. City of Covington (Rec. Doc. 30).
15-4947 Miraglia v. Bd. of Directors of La. State Museum
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Rec. Doc. 101

Page 2 of 4

sidewalks over which Defendant had no control and the possibility of altering store
fronts on the historical building, which the ADA did not require. The Court will award
fees totaling $30,050.25.2
Defendant takes the position that the only fees and costs that Plaintiff can
recover are those directly related to Plaintiff’s compensatory damage award. According
to Defendant, that award was based solely on Plaintiff’s own testimony which cost the
Plaintiff nothing. This contention lacks merit. Before any award of damages became an
issue, Plaintiff had to establish liability stemming from a violation of the ADA. The fees,
costs, and expenses that Defendant objects to were necessary for establishing liability.
Defendant urges the Court to treat the $500.00 award in damages as a nominal
damage award and to reduce any award of fees and costs proportionally. This
contention lacks merit. The primary objective of this lawsuit was not monetary relief so
the small quantum of the damage award does not detract from the success on the
merits that Plaintiff obtained. Defendant never conceded liability and Plaintiff was forced
to try the issue. That the only remedy left available to Plaintiff was a damage award
does not affect his entitlement to all fees and costs associated with satisfying his burden

2

The reduction by the Court also reflects that the case was not streamlined in its infancy.
Plaintiff filed a cumbersome motion for partial summary judgment that included a plethora of
claims that Plaintiff clearly lacked standing to assert. The Court is cognizant of the fact that
Defendant had to pay its own attorneys for what was surely a significant amount of time in
defending that motion. It was the Court’s own ruling that narrowed the scope of the case that
went to trial.
15-4947 Miraglia v. Bd. of Directors of La. State Museum
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Rec. Doc. 101

Page 3 of 4

of proof.3
Plaintiff requests that costs be taxed at $4,975.46, after making numerous
reductions. Defendant suggests that Plaintiff should not be reimbursed for experts who
were not called to testify at trial. The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s contention that he
should not be penalized for entering into stipulations that obviated the need to call the
experts live at trial (or to introduce their depositions into evidence). The Court will award
the requested $4,975.46 in costs without reduction.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Fix Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses
(Rec. Doc. 101) filed by Plaintiff is GRANTED as follows: Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s
fees totaling $30,050.25 and costs/expenses totaling $4,975.46.
November 7, 2017

JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

In fact, the primary objective of the lawsuit was injunctive relief which Plaintiff would have
been entitled to based on the same proof that was necessary to establish liability on the
damage award. On the morning of trial Defendant was allowed to introduce evidence over
Plaintiff’s objection that mooted injunctive relief as an available remedy. Unfortunately, the Court
later learned that Defendant did not actually comply with the measures that it used to moot
Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief until after Plaintiff complained to the Court of Defendant’s
noncompliance (Rec. Doc. 104) and the Court set a status conference to determine the cause of
the delay. Even after the status conference held on November 3, 2017 (Rec. Doc. 118), the
delay in implementing the changes that were used to moot Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief
has yet to be explained to the Court’s satisfaction.
15-4947 Miraglia v. Bd. of Directors of La. State Museum
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Rec. Doc. 101

Page 4 of 4