Rajender v. University of Minnesota, Civ. No. 4-73-435.
| Decision Date | 24 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4-73-435. |
| Citation | 546 F. Supp. 158 |
| Parties | Shyamala RAJENDER, on behalf of herself and a class of academic non-student employees and applicants at the University of Minnesota, Plaintiffs, and Phyllis Kahn, Florence K. Gleason, Silvia Azar, Bertila Herrera and Carol Gold, Plaintiff Intervenors, v. The UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA and the Regents of the University of Minnesota, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Sprenger, Olson & Shutes, P. A. by Paul C. Sprenger; Hvass, Weisman, & King by Robert J. King; Johnson, Sands, Lizee, Fricker & McCloskey, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs.
Leonard, Street & Deinard by Charles A. Mays, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants.
This petition for attorneys' fees derives from a class action originally brought by Dr. Shyamala Rajender against the University of Minnesota. The plaintiff filed her complaint on September 5, 1973, and her Second Amended Complaint on September 6, 1975, alleging that the defendants were engaged in employment discrimination based upon sex and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Jurisdiction is premised upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
During the University judicial proceedings which preceded the filing of her complaint and at the actual initiation of the lawsuit, Dr. Rajender was represented by two attorneys other than petitioners. On May 1, 1975, Paul Sprenger was substituted as attorney for the plaintiff and motions were then made to reopen discovery, which the defendants contended had closed on October 31, 1974, and for leave to file a second amended complaint. At that time Paul Sprenger and Terry Cosgrove, also one of the attorneys for Dr. Rajender, were members of the Johnson & Sands Professional Association.
In June of 1977, prior to presenting class action issues to the Court for formal class determination, the plaintiff's attorneys presented a settlement proposal to the University which was rejected by the defendants.
In late 1977, Paul Sprenger, Eric Olson and Robert Shutes left the Johnson & Sands firm and in January of 1978 filed a notice of appearance of Sprenger, Olson & Shutes, P. A., as co-counsel with Johnson, Sands, Lizee, Fricker & McCloskey.
On April 24, 1978, the Court commenced a pilot trial of the Rajender claims and the sex-based claims of a subclass consisting of that portion of the class in the University's Chemistry Department on the Twin Cities campus. At the end of May 1978, the trial was recessed to enable the parties to explore the possibility of settlement. Following extensive negotiations between plaintiff's attorney Sprenger and defendants' attorney Mays, a proposed agreement of approximately 50 pages was produced, for the parties' approval. The proposal was rejected by the University administration for lack of faculty support.
On August 17, 1978, the University filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims under Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. The lawyers, during this same period, again reached agreement on a 45 page proposed settlement; however, the document was ultimately rejected by a unanimous vote of the Regents of the University in the fall of 1978.
On August 14, 1979, the Court issued a Memorandum Order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Executive Orders 11141 and 11246 and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but denying the defendants' motions to dismiss claims asserted under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In the same Order, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in favor of the Chemistry Department subclass.
During this same period, the plaintiff's attorney Terry Cosgrove accepted employment with a law firm in Chicago. On October 8, 1979, an amended notice of appearance was filed, indicating that the Sprenger firm and its members would continue to assume the obligations of representation of the plaintiff and class and that Terry Cosgrove and the Johnson, Sands firm would withdraw as counsel for the class but remain as counsel for Dr. Rajender in the pilot trial, reserving rights to seek an appropriate cost and fee award under Title VII.
The parties continued discovery in preparation for the recommencement of trial and on or about November 13, 1979, the trial was reconvened and continued until approximately January 4, 1980. In late December 1979, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion seeking the intervention of five additional plaintiffs: Phyllis Kahn, Florence K. Gleason, Silvia Azar, Bertila Herrera, and Carol Gold. In all, the two phases of trial of the action took place over eleven weeks and involved the testimony of 25 witnesses and the submission of 347 exhibits. Pretrial proceedings required the briefing and argument of approximately seventeen motions, as well as numerous hearings and pretrial conferences with the Court.
On or about January 11, 1980, the parties began a third round of settlement discussions which eventually produced the Consent Decree approved by this Court on August 13, 1980. The Consent Decree provides in Part XI () that the "University agrees to and shall pay the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements (including reasonable charges of expert witnesses) incurred by the plaintiff and class members in this action." By order and stipulation dated July 17, 1980, the University agreed that any fee award would bear interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum compounded yearly, running from August 1, 1980. At the "fairness hearing," the commencement date for the running of interest was deferred until the date the Consent Decree was approved by the Court. Transcript, August 1, 1980, Fairness Hearing, pp. 224-25. Therefore, any fee award will bear interest as stated from August 13, 1980, the date the decree was approved.
The full request before this Court is $1,958,050.87. The total amount consists of $1,738,544.50 for attorneys' fees and costs related to the case on its merits, together with post-settlement administration, and $219,506.37 for preparing and compiling the fee application. Sprenger, Olson & Shutes claims $1,405,607.78 and Terry M. Cosgrove and Johnson, Sands, Lizee, Fricker & McCloskey claim $552,443.09 for their respective fees and expenses in this matter. The Sprenger firm's total of $1,405,607.78 is based on the following table:
ATTORNEYS' FEES
A. Base fee for time spent
on merits (pre-settlement
hours less pre-settlement
application hours)
(2,980.25 hours at
$125/hour): $ 372,531.25
B. Increase of 1.00 for risk
on the merits: 372,531.25
C. Increase of 1.00 for
quality on the merits: 372,531.25
D. Base fee for time spent
on post-settlement
administration (502.75
hours at $125/hour): 62,843.75
E. Base fee for time spent
on application (pre- and
post-settlement
application) (1,066.75
hours at $125/hour): 133,343.75
_____________
TOTAL FEES: $1,313,781.25
_____________
EXPENSES
A. Legal assistants and
law clerks: Treated as Overhead
B. Expenses incurred on
the merits: 52,228.38
C. Expenses incurred on
administration
post-settlement: 3,498.62
D. Expenses incurred on
application: 36,099.53
_____________
TOTAL EXPENSES: $ 91,826.53
_____________
Total requested fees and
expenses reimbursement
of Sprenger, Olson &
Shutes, P. A.: $1,405,607.78
_____________
The Terry Cosgrove and Johnson & Sands total of $552,443.09 is based on the following table:
ATTORNEYS' FEES
A. A base fee for time
devoted to the case on its
merits (2,093.25 hours at
$80/hour): $ 167,460.00
B. Increase of 1.00 for risk
on the merits: $ 167,460.00
C. Increase of 1.00 for
quality on the merits: 167,460.00
D. A base fee for time
devoted to the application
included in the Second
Amended Application
(244.50 hours at
$80/hour): 19,560.00
E. A base fee for time
devoted to
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bunn v. Bowen
...and expertise of the time required to complete similar activities." Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717. See also Rajender v. University of Minnesota, 546 F.Supp. 158, 165 (D.Minn.1982). In sum, the court must carefully scrutinize the total number of hours reported by the fee applicant to arrive at th......
-
Spell v. McDaniel
...similar activities." Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717 (5th Cir.1974). See also Rajender v. University of Minnesota, 546 F.Supp. 158, 165 (D.Minn.1982). In sum, the Court must carefully scrutinize the total number of hours reported by the prevailing party to arrive......
-
Houghton v. Sipco, Inc.
...described by Judge Lord in three opinions which carefully explore the history of the Johnson-Lindy tug-of-war. Rajender v. University of Minn., 546 F.Supp. 158 (D.Minn.1982); McDonald v. Johnson & Johnson, 546 F.Supp. 324 (D.Minn. 1982), vacated, 722 F.2d 1390 (8th Cir.1983); Vickerman v. H......
-
US v. City and County of San Francisco
...consolidations of clerical and non-clerical chores. Courts have deducted time spent by attorneys in xeroxing, Rajender v. Univ. of Minn., 546 F.Supp. 158, 165-166 (D.Minn. 1982), and time spent filing court papers, Cook v. Block, 609 F.Supp. 1036, 1042 (D.D.C.1985). But here, counsel spent ......