Wilkinson et al v. State of Utah, The et al
Filing
105
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDERgranting 92 Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Against State Defendants. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Award of Fees & Costs Against State Defendants (Docket No. 92) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are awarded $39,548.13 for fees and $19.00 for costs, for a total of $39,567.13. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 06/14/2012. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
TERRY LEE WILKINSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR AWARD OF FEES &
COSTS AGAINST STATE
DEFENDANTS
vs.
THE STATE OF UTAH, et al.,
Case No. 2:10-CV-523 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Fees and Costs
Against State Defendants.1 For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court will grant the
Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Terry Lee Wilkinson, Patty Eagle, Steve Ray Evans, and Jackie Sanchez
brought suit to challenge the constitutionality of Utah Code Ann. § 41-6a-1009(4) (“the Statute”)
under the First Amendment.
1
Docket No. 92.
1
As originally filed, the suit included Defendants associated with Salt Lake City (“City
Defendants”).2 In April 2011, Plaintiffs resolved their claims against the City Defendants and
filed a settlement agreement with the Court,3 which the Court accepted through a consent order.4
The agreement did not, however, resolve Plaintiffs’ claims against the State of Utah (“State
Defendants”).5 Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against the State Defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on their claims against the State
Defendants, which the Court granted.6 Defendants then filed a motion to reconsider which the
Court denied.7 Plaintiffs bring this Motion seeking to recover the costs and fees associated with
their suit against the State Defendants.8
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs move the Court for an entry of attorney fees as a prevailing party under 42
U.S.C. § 1988. Section 1988 provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n any action or proceeding to
enforce a provision of section[] . . . 1983 . . . of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow
2
Id. at 2.
3
See Docket No. 30.
4
See Docket No. 37.
5
Id. at 3.
6
Docket No. 88.
7
Docket No. 101.
8
The Court previously granted fees and costs to Plaintiffs for time spent on the claims
against the City Defendants at Docket No. 55.
2
the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the
costs.”9
Plaintiffs request a fee award of: (1) $6,723.13 for time spent pre-April 2011 on
preparing, filing, and serving the initial Complaint; (2) $28,288.75 for time spent post-April 2011
on the Amended Complaint, summary judgment, and the request for attorney’s fees; and (3)
$4,536.25 for time spent on the motion to reconsider. Plaintiffs also request costs in the amount
of $19.00.
The State Defendants agree to Plaintiffs’ fee calculation for post-April 2011 and the
motion to reconsider, but object to Plaintiffs’ requests for pre-April 2011 fees.
The State Defendants argue that “the original Complaint was focused against the City
Defendants and their actions.”10 After succeeding against the City Defendants, “[i]n order to
proceed against the State, the Plaintiff [sic] had to completely re-write and file an amended
complaint, adding an additional Plaintiff and additional Defendants.”11 According to Defendants,
amendment was necessitated by defects in the Complaint with respect to standing and
justiciability issues, and Plaintiffs were therefore required to make substantial changes to the
Complaint and the parties in order to have a case against the State Defendants. Accordingly, the
State Defendants ask the Court to see the Amended Complaint as initiating “a new case against
9
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
10
Docket No. 103, at 3.
11
Id.
3
the State Defendants” and therefore deny fees against the State Defendants for hours worked
before the Amended Complaint was filed.12
Plaintiffs contend that the original Complaint was neither exclusively focused on the City
Defendants nor deficient against the State Defendants. According to Plaintiffs, while the “initial
and most pressing goal in this litigation was to secure immediate injunctive relief against the City
Defendants,”13 the Plaintiffs’ overarching goal was always the invalidation of the Statute at the
state level. Accordingly, Plaintiffs point out, the initial Complaint alleged claims against the
State Defendants and sought, ultimately, state-wide relief.
The Court will not engage here in an analysis of whether the original Complaint was
deficient against the State Defendants. Rather, the Court finds that the original Complaint clearly
sought relief against the State Defendants,14 such that its preparation is properly seen as part of,
rather than independent from, Plaintiffs’ case against the State Defendants. If the Complaint
thereafter required amendment, that amendment built off work already attributable to the case
against the State Defendants and did not begin a new, independent action for purposes of the fee
calculation. Accordingly, the Court finds that the pre-April 2011 fees should be included in
Plaintiffs’ fee award.
12
Id. at 5.
13
Docket No. 104, at 2.
14
See Docket No. 1, at 2 (“With respect to the Utah State Defendants, Plaintiffs seek only
declaratory, equitable and prospective injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the
Statute.”).
4
III. CONCLUSION
Because Defendants have not objected to any of Plaintiffs’ other fee or cost calculations,
the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ request in full. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Fees & Costs Against State Defendants
(Docket No. 92) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are awarded $39,548.13 for fees and $19.00 for costs,
for a total of $39,567.13.
DATED June 14, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?