United Supreme Council, 33 Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Prince Hall Affiliation, Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America et al v. United Supreme Council of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite for the 33 De

Filing 414

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - For the reasons stated above, and for good cause shown, Defendants are hereby AWARDED $245,040.40 in attorneys' fees and $13,424.98 in costs, plus interest at the rate provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 accruing from the date of this Order, to be assessed against Plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 08/15/2019. (dvanm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

UNITED SUPREME COUNCIL,33
DEGREE OF THE ANCIENT AND
ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE OF

FREEMASONRY,PRINCE HALL
AFFILIATION,SOUTHERN
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED

Civil No. l:16-cv-1103

Hon. Liam O'Grady
Hon. Ivan D. Davis

STATES OF AMERICA,ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,
V.

UNITED SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE

ANCIENT ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE
FOR THE 33 DEGREE OF

FREEMASONRY,SOUTHERN
JURISDICTION,PRINCE HALL
AFFILIATED,ETAL.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses(Dkt. 355). On January 17, 2019, the Court determined that Defendants are entitled to
attorneys' fees and expenses in this matter and ordered Defendants to file documentation

supporting their requested award amount. See Dkt. 381. Briefing for the appropriate award is

complete, and the issue is now ripe for resolution.'For the reasons stated below, and for good
cause shown,the Court awards $245,040.40 in attorneys' fees and $13,424.98 in costs, plus
interest accruing from the date of this Order.

'PlaintifTs spend much oftheir opposition brief relitigating the Court's decision that this was an "exceptional" case
and that Defendants are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs did not timely file a motion for
reconsideration ofthe Court's prior Order, so those arguments are not properly before the Court. The Court also
reaffirms its prior holding that Defendants are entitled to fees and costs because this was an "exceptional" case.