Upload
equality-case-files
View
229
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
1/40
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL. ) )PLAINTIFFS )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.and )
) 3:13-CV-750-JGHTIMOTHY LOVE, ET AL. )
)INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS )
)v. )
)STEVE BESHEAR, ET AL. )
)DEFENDANTS )
)
* * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys fees in the amount of $66,235.00, which encompasses a
total of $30,635.00 for the Fauver law office, and $35,600.00 for Clay Daniel Walton Adams, PLC,
and $453.00 in costs.
II. FACTS
Shortly after the Supreme Court's opinion in Windsor , Plaintiffs filed this action under 42 U.S.C.
1983 to enforce their federal constitutional right to have their valid marriages recognized by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. After filing briefs and the supporting testimony, this Court unequivocally
held that the challenged statutes were in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs have thus far won
a complete victory, and received precisely the relief they requested. Since this Court's Memorandum
Opinion and Order, the Defendant Attorney General has publicly admitted that the laws challenged in
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 780
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
2/40
this case are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that this Court got it right.
III. AUTHORITY
A. Plaintiffs are the Prevailing Party for the Purposes of Determining Attorneys Fees
This case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Prevailing parties under Section 1983 are
entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees. 42 U.S.C. 1988. [P]laintiffs may be considered
prevailing parties for attorneys fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation
which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit. Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S.
424, 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983).
Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully
compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and
indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified. In these
circumstances the fee award should not be reduced simply because the plaintiff failed to prevail on
every contention raised in the lawsuit. Id. at 435. Whether or not Plaintiffs succeeded on every claim or
every motion is unimportant[t]he result is what matters. Id. This fee should not be reduced
"simply because the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in the lawsuit." But if the
plaintiff achieved only limited success, the court should reduce the award accordingly. Harper v. BP
Exploration & Oil, Inc., 3 Fed. Appx. 204, 207 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Hensley ). It is hard to imagine
a more favorable result for the Plaintiffs in this case. Although counsel is not requesting enhanced fees,
this case should be considered an exceptional success.
B. The Appropriate Method for Determining Reasonable Attorneys Fees is the LodestarApproach
The lodestar approach is used to determine reasonable attorneys fees. See Hensley v. Eckerhart,
461 U.S. 424, 433-37 (1983). The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the
prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Morales v. City of
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 781
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
3/40
San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9 th Cir. 1996). Courts consider the following factors: the novelty and
complexity of the issues; the special skill and experience of counsel; the quality of representation; the
results obtained; and the contingent nature of the fee agreement. Id. at 364.
All of the lodestar facts support awarding Plaintiffs their full attorneys fees. Plaintiffs counsellitigated a novel issue of law that required specialized skill and experience in several areas of law,
including family law and constitutional law. Plaintiffs counsel provided high-quality representation,
achieving a complete victory within a year of filing.
C. The Hours and Rates Requested by Plaintiffs are Reasonable
Counsel requests compensation for 275.54 hours spent litigating this case. The rates and hours
expended by counsel are reasonable.
1. Counsels hourly rates are reasonable
Given counsels extensive expertise in civil rights, constitutional rights, and other civil
litigation, these rates are commensurate or below what is charged by attorneys of like experience in the
Louisville legal community. See Affidavits of Paul Hershberg and Gregory Belzley, attached hereto.
Compared to other federal litigation involving constitutional claims, these hourly rates are reasonable.
For example, in Maxwell's Pic-Pac, Inc. v. Dehner , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34596, 11 (W.D. Ky. Mar.
12, 2013) this Court awarded attorneys hourly rates ranging from $475 - $180 for attorneys and $200
to $150 for paralegals. In that case, the Court said:
Plaintiffs claim that their success in this case, the difficulty of the issues involved includinga rigorous Equal Protection Clause standard to surmount, and the level of legal skill andexperience Plaintiffs' attorneys, paralegals, and librarian brought to this case, cumulatively
justify this award. In support of their rates, Plaintiffs further argue that these that they havecharged their client for their services. Plaintiffs support their rates with affidavits from twoof the most prominent attorneys in this area, both of whom claim that Plaintiffs' rates arereasonable.
Id. , pp.11-13. Thus, the Dehner case is readily comparable to the instant case. This Court went on to
state:
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 782
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
4/40
As shown above, this Court has previously awarded rates between $200 and $305 forattorney's fees under 1988. For attorneys with a higher level of skill and experience, therate was at the higher end of this range. There is no evidence that these attorneys forewentother opportunities to handle this dispute. Nevertheless, the time spent and the resultsobtained are significant enough to justify an extension beyond the higher end of that range.
Accordingly, the Court will reduce each attorney's rate by 25%, using the attorney's 2011rate as the basis for the reduction and rounding up to the nearest dollar figure. Thus makingthe highest rate $342 per hour. The Court finds these rates aligned with the value of thequality of work and the complexity of the case, and are therefore reasonable.
Id ., at 15. The Court's comprehensive analysis throughout Dehner is helpful to the resolution of this
issue.
2. The hours expended by Plaintiffs counsel are reasonable
Not only are the rates reasonable, but the time expended to achieve the results in this case was
moderate. Conferences and other consultations were kept to a minimum. Work was clearly divided
between the attorneys, each taking specific responsibilities for the tasks at hand. The attorneys carefully
edited all briefs, resulting in high-quality legal memoranda that clearly and succinctly identified the
novel issues to be decided by the Court, and managed a group of eight clients who were originally split
into two different cases. Additionally, there was extensive media contact in this case, which
necessitated the time and attention of counsel as well. Counsel has not billed for the entirety of this
contact (which would be nearly possible to catalogue).
The time spent on the case is broken down in the time records attached to this Motion (i.e., an
invoice for attorneys Landenwich, Canon, and Dunman, a spreadsheet for the Fauver Law Office, and
the affidavit of Mr. Winner). The time reflects the significant effort spent briefing the pleadings and
memoranda in this case as well as preparing for hearings and managing client contact. To take timely
action, counsel had to place other work aside to quickly prepare this case. The legal issues were unique
and significant. Research and briefing was required on a variety of novel legal issues, including, among
others: the application of the federal right to travel; the interplay between sexual orientation
discrimination, sex discrimination, and the federal Constitution; the operation of the Kentucky state
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 783
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
5/40
constitution; the Supremacy Clause; the role of the Establishment Clause, etc.
Significant briefing occurred on two separate occasions. See Dkt. Nos. 38, 40, 46. It should be
noted that the law regarding the claims brought by Plaintiffs involved not only a great deal of historical
and legislative research, but also required counsel to stay abreast of a rapidly changing legal landscape.As this Court is well aware, since the Windsor opinion, there have been several opinions issued by
district courts, all reaching slightly different conclusions, and all briefed under (sometimes
substantially) different legal theories using different approaches. These nuances have left counsel on
terra incognito , and have required perhaps more research than the average 1983 case. In addition, the
intervention of the Family Foundation as amicus, and their brief, required counsel to research social,
cultural, and psychological issues (i.e., to engage in Brandeis briefing) which would normally not be
required in federal litigation.
Thus, the hours spent on the case are reasonable given the novelty and complexity of legal
issues involved, the compressed schedule and the complete victory obtained for the Plaintiffs.
IV. ATTORNEYS OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES
All litigation expenses in civil rights cases, including out-of-pocket expenses, are recoverable
under 42 U.S.C. 1988, as long as the expenses were reasonable and necessary to the litigation of
plaintiffs claims and are not normally billed to the lawyers paying clients as overhead. Ramos v.
Lamm, 713 F.2d at 559-60 (photocopying, postage, telephone, etc.). The Act [42 U.S.C. 1988]
essentially shifts the costs of litigation from the victim to the violator. Spell v. McDaniel , 616 F. Supp.
1069, 1113 (E.D.N.C. 1985), affd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 824 F.2d 1380, (4 th Cir.
1987), cert. den. sub nom. City of Fayetteville v. Spell , 484 U.S. 1027 (1988).
In this case, counsel does not seek travel expenses, meals, copies, phone charges, paralegal
time, or anything of the sort. Plaintiffs simply seek to recoup their original filing fee and the expense of
ordering videos from the Legislative Research Commission regarding the legislative history of the
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 784
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
6/40
discriminatory constitutional amendment at issue in this case. These are quite modest expenses.
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs should be awarded attorneys fees in the amount of $66,235.00 and $453.00 in costs,
totaling $66,688.00.
Respectfully submitted,
Shannon Fauver Dawn ElliottFAUVER LAW OFFICE, PLLC1752 Frankfort Ave.Louisville , KY 40206(502) 569-7710www. fauverlaw.comCounsel for all Plaintiffs
s/ Daniel J. Canon Daniel J. CanonLaura E. LandenwichL. Joe Dunman
Louis P. Winner CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLCMeidinger Tower, Suite 101462 S. Fourth StreetLouisville, KY 40202(502) 561-2005www.justiceky.comCounsel for all Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 11, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of thecourt by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Clay A. BarkleyBrian JudyAssistant Attorney GeneralsOffice of the Attorney GeneralSuite 118700 Capital AvenueFrankfort, KY 40601Counsel for Defendants Steve Beshear and
Jack Conway
/s/ Daniel J. Canon
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 785
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
7/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 786
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
8/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 787
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
9/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 788
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
10/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 789
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
11/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 790
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
12/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 791
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
13/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 792
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
14/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 793
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
15/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 794
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
16/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 795
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
17/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 796
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
18/40
Prep/research & telephonic hearing on Motionto Stay; corresp w counsel; media contact
Receipt and review: Case pleadings; other casepleadings
Corresp w Fauver, review pleadings and MTD,consult w/LEL & LPW, preliminary research
Meeting with Shannon and Dawn to discusscase [JD]
Meeting with co-counsel
Review pleadings, revise documentation andresearch
Email exchange regarding procedural steps w/Canon & Landenwich [JD]
Research legislative history of KRS 402.020 etseq., Const 233A; email w/ Canon [JD]
Review final draft of Second Amend Complaint[JD]
Research & draft amended complaint
Draft: Mot Restyle; Mot Leave, Second Amended Complaint
Draft initial affidavits of clients based on Fauver email notes [JD]
Research FRCP 5.1 re constitutional challenge;draft notice to USAG
Date Matter Description User Rate Total
02/28/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
3.00
$250.00 $750.00
10/09/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
2.20
$250.00 $550.00
10/18/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$250.00 $250.00
10/21/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.50
$200.00 $300.00
10/21/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
1.20
$250.00 $300.00
10/22/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$250.00 $250.00
10/23/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.20
$200.00 $40.00
10/28/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.50
$200.00 $300.00
10/28/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.50
$200.00 $100.00
10/28/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$250.00 $500.00
10/28/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
1.20
$250.00 $300.00
10/29/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$200.00 $200.00
10/29/2013 00837-Bourke Dan Canon $250.00 $125.00
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 797
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
19/40
Research and draft amd complaint
Research and revise 2nd am complaint
Draft: 2nd amended complaint
Corresp w counsel & clients
Meeting at Fauver office to interview clients for affidavits [JD]
Meet w clients, gather info for affidavits
Review draft Joint Scheduling Order, emailexchange w/ Canon & Landenwich [JD]
Email exchange w/ Landenwich re: Entry of Appearance [JD]
Email exchange w/ Goodman re: Entry of Appearance; filing of Entry of Appearance [JD]
Review affidavits drafted and finalized byChambers [JD]
Review Ohio ruling Obergefell; email exchangew/ Winner, Canon & Landenwich [JD]
Review Answer to 2nd Amend Complaint fromDefendants [JD]
Date Matter Description User Rate Total
Billed on Invoice 7980.50
10/29/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$250.00 $500.00
10/30/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$250.00 $500.00
11/01/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
0.80
$250.00 $200.00
11/08/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.50
$250.00 $125.00
11/12/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$200.00 $400.00
11/12/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$250.00 $500.00
11/20/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$200.00 $60.00
11/25/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.00
$200.00 $0.00
11/26/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.20
$200.00 $40.00
11/27/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.80
$200.00 $160.00
11/27/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.50
$200.00 $300.00
12/02/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$200.00 $60.00
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 798
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
20/40
Corresp w clients and counsel
Review amd answer
Email exchange w/ Canon & Landenwich re:MSJ arguments [JD]
Review research results from Canon re:Windsor doctrine; email w/Canon; Reviewlegislative video [JD]
Draft Equal Prot & Due Process section of MSJmemo [JD]
Draft MSJ
Draft Equal Prot & Due Process section of MSJmemo [JD]
Draft MSJ
Research
Email exchange w/ Fauver re: Federal SSMbenefits [JD]
Draft MSJ; review and revise co-counsel'sportions
Email exchange regarding affidavit execution w/Canon & Landenwich [JD]
Review and revise affidavits
Date Matter Description User Rate Total
12/02/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$250.00 $75.00
12/02/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$250.00 $75.00
12/04/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.10
$200.00 $20.00
12/05/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.50
$200.00 $500.00
12/05/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
4.00
$200.00 $800.00
12/05/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
3.00
$250.00 $750.00
12/06/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
6.00
$200.00 $1,200.00
12/06/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
3.00
$250.00 $750.00
12/06/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
1.20
$250.00 $300.00
12/08/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.10
$200.00 $20.00
12/08/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
4.00
$250.00 $1,000.00
12/09/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.10
$200.00 $20.00
12/09/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$250.00 $75.00
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 799
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
21/40
Research: Legislative history; Establishmentclause
Draft, edit, and finalize pleading: MSJ
Review affidavits and secure approval; correspw clients and counsel
Email exchange regarding draft of MSJ w/Canon & Landenwich [JD]
Research; write introduction to MSJ
Draft: MSJ
Review, edit, and finalize MSJ and Memo inSupport; File w/ court [JD]
Meet w counsel; final review & revision of MSJ
Review and edit MSJ
Compile exhibits, finalize, and file MSJ
Draft: MSJ
Review, copy, submit as exhibit to courtlegislative video [JD]
Review AG response
Date Matter Description User Rate Total
12/09/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
3.00
$250.00 $750.00
12/09/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
2.00
$250.00 $500.00
12/13/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$250.00 $75.00
12/15/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$200.00 $60.00
12/15/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$250.00 $250.00
12/15/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
6.00
$250.00 $1,500.00
12/16/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
6.00
$200.00 $1,200.00
12/16/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.50
$250.00 $625.00
12/16/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.50
$250.00 $375.00
12/16/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.80
$250.00 $200.00
12/16/2013 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
8.20
$250.00 $2,050.00
12/17/2013 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.50
$200.00 $300.00
01/01/2014 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$250.00 $250.00
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 800
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
22/40
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
23/40
Email exchange w/ Canon & Landenwich re:potential law clerk assistance on case [JD]
Review of Acknowledgement of Constitutional
Challenge from US DOJ [JD]
Review of Order granting Plaintiffs' leave torespond to Amicus Brief [JD]
Research and draft response to Amicus Brief;submit to Landenwich for inclusion [JD]
Draft: Response to Amicus brief/research
Review and edit Landenwich draft of Responseto Amicus [JD]
Review & revise response to amicus brief,research, draft introduction & conclusion
Draft: Response to Amicus
Review advanced copy of MemorandumOpinion filed by Judge Heyburn [JD]
Meeting w/ Canon & Landenwich to discussMemorandum Order and next steps [JD]
Press conferences and interviews re: JudgeHeyburn's opinion. [JD]
Receive and review opinion; filed various mediacontacts, meet w clients & counsel
Meeting with Intervening Plaintiffs to discussprocedural steps [JD]
Date Matter Description User Rate Total
01/20/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.10
$200.00 $20.00
01/21/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.10
$200.00 $20.00
01/23/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.10
$200.00 $20.00
01/24/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
3.50
$200.00 $700.00
02/02/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
2.20
$250.00 $550.00
02/03/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$200.00 $400.00
02/03/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.50
$250.00 $375.00
02/03/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
6.80
$250.00 $1,700.00
02/12/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$200.00 $60.00
02/12/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$200.00 $200.00
02/12/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
3.50
$200.00 $700.00
02/12/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
6.00
$250.00 $1,500.00
02/13/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$200.00 $60.00
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 802
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
24/40
Final review of Mot to Intervene and Mot for Prelim Injunction & associate docs [JD]
Press conferences and media interviews RE:
Mot to Intervene [JD]
Review Order for Conference; email exchangere: attendance at Conference [JD]
Attend Conference w/ Judge regarding Motionto Intervene and effect of Final Order [JD]
Prep hearing for prelim inj/intervention; attend
hearing; media contact
Preparation for and Appearance at Hearing
Review Motion for Stay filed by Defendants;Review Order granting Mot to Intervene; reviewOrder denying injunction; Email exchangeregarding attendance at Conference re: Mot toStay; Review Order for Conference [JD]
Press interview re: Mot to Stay [JD]
Review of Order modifying style of the case toLove v. Beshear [JD]
Press conference w/ media re: Mot to Stay andconference [JD]
Attend Conference w/ Judge re: Mot to Stay[JD]
Review Order Granting Mot to Stay [JD]
Date Matter Description User Rate Total
02/14/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$200.00 $200.00
02/14/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$200.00 $400.00
02/19/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.50
$200.00 $100.00
02/26/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$200.00 $400.00
02/26/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
4.00
$250.00 $1,000.00
02/26/2014 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
1.20
$250.00 $300.00
02/27/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.20
$200.00 $240.00
02/27/2014 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$200.00 $200.00
02/28/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.10
$200.00 $20.00
02/28/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$200.00 $200.00
02/28/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
2.00
$200.00 $400.00
02/28/2014 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.30
$200.00 $60.00
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 803
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
25/40
Phone interview with media re: Order grantingStay [JD]
Research re stay requirements, prep for
hearing, telephonic hearing
Press interviews [JD]
Prepare attorney fee petition and affidavits
Receipt and review: Opinion and Order
Contact w county attorneys re: dismissal of clerks; review proposed motion from StephanieFrench; conf w counsel
Date Matter Description User Rate Total
02/28/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.50
$200.00 $100.00
02/28/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
3.20
$250.00 $800.00
03/04/2014 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
1.00
$200.00 $200.00
03/04/2014 00837-BourkeBilled on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
3.00
$250.00 $750.00
03/06/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Laura Landenwich
0.50
$250.00 $125.00
10/24/2014 00837-Bourke
Billed on Invoice 798
Dan Canon
0.50
$250.00 $125.00
146.00 $33,675.00
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 804
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
26/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-4 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 805
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
27/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-4 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 806
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
28/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-4 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 807
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
29/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-4 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 808
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
30/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-5 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 809
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
31/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-5 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 810
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
32/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-5 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 811
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
33/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-5 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 812
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
34/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-6 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 813
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
35/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-6 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 814
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
36/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-6 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 815
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
37/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-6 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 816
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
38/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-7 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 817
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
39/40
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-7 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 818
8/12/2019 3:13-cv-00750 #60
40/40
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
PLAINTIFFS
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-750-JGH
STEVE BESHEAR, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
* * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER
Upon motion of the Plaintiffs, having reviewed the affidavits submitted by
Plaintiffs counsel, and having reviewed this file in its entirety the Court finds that the
Defendant(s) are hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff's attorneys, Daniel J. Canon, Laura
E. Landenwich, L. Joe Dunman, Louis P. Winner, Shannon Fauver, and Dawn Elliott the
sum of $66,235.00 in attorneys fees and $453.00 in costs. This is a final and appealableOrder and there is no just cause for delay in its entry.
Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-8 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 819