Dorman v. Clinton, Township of

Filing 109

ORDER (1) Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiffs' 100 Second Motion for Interim Attorney Fees and (2) Terminating Plaintiffs' 106 Motion Requesting Ruling as Moot. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL DORMAN et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-cv-12552
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
MOTION FOR INTERIM ATTORNEY FEES (ECF No. 100) AND (2)
TERMINATING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REQUESTING
RULING (ECF No. 106) AS MOOT
In this action, Plaintiff River of Life Ministries, INT and its pastor, Plaintiff
Michael Dorman, challenge a provision of Defendant Clinton Township’s zoning
code that applies to the real property located at 22515 Laurel (the “Laurel Property”)
on which River of Life wants to locate and operate its church. In an Amended
Complaint, River of Life and Dorman bring seven claims against Clinton Township:
 Violation of the Substantial Burden provision of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)
(see Am. Compl., ECF No. 8 at ¶¶ 88-97);
 Violation of the Equal Terms provision of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc(b)(1) (see id. at ¶¶ 98-103);
 Violation of the Nondiscrimination provision of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc(b)(2) (see id. at ¶¶ 104-13);
1

 Violation of the First Amendment (see id. at ¶¶ 114-19);
 Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see
id. at ¶¶ 120-37);
 Retaliation in violation of the First Amendment (see id. at ¶¶ 138-44); and
 An “Appeal from Agency Action” (see id. at ¶¶ 145-49).
On December 8, 2017, Clinton Township agreed to permit River of Life to
use the Laurel Property as a church. (See Stipulated Order, ECF No. 40.) Dorman
and River of Life thereafter filed a motion for interim fees and costs pursuant to the
Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). (See First
Attorney Fee Mot., ECF No. 43.) Section 1988(b) permits a court to award attorney
fees and costs to a “prevailing party” in a RLUIPA action. It provides, in relevant
part, that “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of …. [RLUIPA] …
the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United
States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
The Court, over Clinton Township’s opposition, awarded Dorman and River
of Life a substantial amount of interim fees. (See Order, ECF No. 64.) More
specifically, the Court ordered Clinton Township to pay Dorman and River of Life
$60,897.00 in attorney fees and $1,268.69 in costs. (See id., PageID.2355.)
Even though Clinton Township granted River of Life permission to use the
Laurel Property as a church in 2017, this litigation continued, and Dorman and River
of Life have won some victories. Since the Court awarded Dorman and River of
2

Life interim fees, it has, among other things, entered orders (1) granting Dorman’s
and River of Life’s motion to disqualify Clinton Township’s counsel Robert Davis
(see Order, ECF No. 75) and (2) granting River of Life’s motion for summary
judgment on its Equal Terms claim, denying Dorman’s motion for summary
judgment on his Equal Terms claim, and granting Clinton Township’s motion on
Dorman’s Equal Terms claim (see Op. and Order, ECF No. 99).
On August 22, 2019, Dorman and River of Life filed a second motion seeking
interim fees and costs under Section 1988(b). (See Second Attorney Fee Mot., ECF
No. 100.) Dorman and River of Life have also filed a motion seeking an expedited
ruling on their interim fee motion. (See Mot., ECF No. 106.) Clinton Township
opposes both motions. (See ECF Nos. 103, 107.) The Court concludes that it may
resolve the motions without oral argument. See E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).
The Court has carefully reviewed Dorman’s and River of Life’s motions and
declines to exercise its discretion to provide another interim award of fees and costs
at this time. As described above, the Court has already exercised that discretion once
and provided Dorman and River of Life a substantial interim fee award. The Court
believes that the best time to assess the value and appropriate amount of the fees
incurred since the Court’s first award is at the conclusion of this case. At that point,
the Court will have a fuller appreciation of, and better perspective from which to
assess, the additional value, claimed necessity and propriety, and worth of the legal
3

work performed since the Court’s prior interim fee award. Thus, under these
circumstances, the most prudent course of action is to review Dorman’s and River
of Life’s request for fees at the end of the case.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Dorman’s and
River of Life’s second motion for interim attorney fees (ECF No. 100) WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to Dorman’s and River of Life’s ability to seek these fees at the
conclusion of this case. The Court will also TERMINATE AS MOOT Dorman’s
and River of Life’s motion for an expedited ruling on their attorney fee request (ECF
No. 106).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 26, 2020

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 26, 2020, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4