Montanez v. Fico
| Decision Date | 18 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 10 C 4708.,10 C 4708. |
| Citation | 931 F.Supp.2d 869 |
| Parties | Andy MONTANEZ, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS FICO (STAR # 6284), SIMON (STAR # 16497), and The City of Chicago, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mary Johanna Grieb, April Dominique Preyar, Barbara C. Long, Brendan Shiller, Shiller Preyar Law Offices, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Gail Lynne Reich, City of Chicago, Department of Law, Jordan E. Marsh, City of Chicago, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Scott J. Jebson, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Andy Montanez filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Officer Vincent Fico used excessive force against him in connection with an arrest on March 20, 2009, and that Officer Joseph Simon failed to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force. Following a 3 1/2–day trial, on June 15, 2012, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff on his excessive force claim and awarded him a total of $2,000 ($1,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages). The jury found in favor of Defendant Simon on the failure to intervene claim.
Plaintiff now seeks to recover $426,379.69 in attorneys' fees and $1,824.99 in expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and $4,696.84 in costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Plaintiff also seeks an award of prejudgment interest on the attorneys' fees. Defendants, in turn, seek $19,936.34 in costs on behalf of Officer Simon. For the reasons set forth here, Plaintiff is awarded $109,503.86 in fees and expenses, plus prejudgment interest, and $3,055.04 in costs. Defendants' request for costs is denied.
In Section 1983 cases, a court has discretion to award “the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Walker v. Calumet City, Illinois, 565 F.3d 1031, 1033 (7th Cir.2009). In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)provides that “costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless “a court order provides otherwise.” Defendants argue that Plaintiff's request for fees must be substantially reduced in this case because the attorney rates are too high, the hours expended are unreasonable, and Plaintiff achieved only limited success. Defendants also maintain that Plaintiff's cost award must be modified to exclude excessive deposition transcript charges and other improper expenses. Plaintiff defends his attorneys' hours and rates, and insists that his level of success was so unexpected as to warrant a 25% increase in his fee award. Plaintiff further argues that Defendants are not entitled to any costs in this case. The Court considers each argument below.
In determining a reasonable attorneys' fee amount, the Court uses the lodestar method, which entails “multiplying the ‘number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation ... by a reasonable hourly rate.’ ” Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632, 639 (7th Cir.2011) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). The lodestar amount may then be adjusted based on factors set forth in Hensley, but “[t]here is a strong presumption that the lodestar calculation yields a reasonable attorneys' fee award.” Id.
In his petition for fees, Plaintiff claims that his lodestar amount is $341,103.75. (Doc. 123, at 8). According to the attached time records, however, the lodestar amount calculates to $341,985, a difference of $881.25. Specifically, Plaintiff's attorneys, Brendan Shiller, April Preyar, Mary Grieb, Barbara Long, Laura Bautista, Jon Erickson and Michael Oppenheimer worked a total of 1,021.55 hours on the case, and paralegals “DM” (full name unknown) and Roberto Lopez (“RL”) worked another 30 hours. (Doc. 123–1; Doc. 123–5). At the requested rates, the total fees break down as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Midwest Bank v. City of Chi.
...done "none of the trial work" in that case. Montanez v. Chi. Police Officers Fico (Star No. 6284), Simon (Star No. 16497) , 931 F.Supp.2d 869, 875-76 (N.D. Ill. 2013), aff'd sub nom. Montanez v. Simon , 755 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court finds that discussion and Shiller's decade-plus ......
-
Martin v. City of Chi., 15-cv-04576
...hour for the senior attorney on the case and $421 dollars per hour for the other attorney—are extremely high. See Montanez v. Fico, 931 F. Supp. 2d 869, 876 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (noting that "Jon Loevy, who has practiced law for 19 years and leads what is fairly considered one of the premier Ch......
-
Pouncy v. City of Chi., Case No. 15-cv-1840
...such agreements constitute contingency agreements. Montanez v. Chicago Police Officers Fico (Star No. 6284), Simon (Star No. 16497), 931 F. Supp. 2d 869, 876 n. 3 (N.D. Ill. 2013). Furthermore, the § 1983 retainer agreements provided contain contradictory language regarding the rates to be ......
-
Favela v. Boyd
...system, and telephoning court reporters." Montanez v. Chicago Police Officers Fico (Star No. 6284), Simon (Star No. 16497), 931 F. Supp. 2d 869, 884 (N.D. Ill. 2013), aff'd sub nom. Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014). Here, the Court will not discuss time entries line-by-line. ......