United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Jeremy Axel, Matthew Mitchell and Keyon Cooley, Plaintiffs.
Officer Michael Griffin and Officer William Gregory, in their capacities as police officers for the City of Minneapolis, Defendants.
Paul Applebaum, Esq., Andrew M. Irlbeck, Esq., Michael T. DeCourcy, Jr., Esq. and DeCourcy Law PLLC, counsel for plaintiffs.
Timothy S. Skarda, Esq., Minneapolis City Attorney's Office, Robert J. Fowler, Esq., Fowler Law Firm, LLC, Ryan L. Kaess, Esq., Kaess Law, counsel for defendants.
DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the motion for attorneys' fees and costs by plaintiff Jeremy Axel. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants the motion in part.
Plaintiffs Axel, Matthew Mitchell and Keyon Cooley (collectively, plaintiffs) filed the instant action in Minnesota court, each alleging excessive force, failure to intervene and unlawful arrest against defendants Michael Griffin and William Gregory (collectively, defendants). On April 24, 2012, defendants removed the action. The case proceeded to trial, and on December 16, 2013, a jury found Griffin liable to Axel on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim. The jury awarded Axel $45, 000 in compensatory damages and $80, 000 in punitive damages. The jury found for defendants on all other counts. Thereafter, Axel moved for $226, 686.00 in attorneys' fees and $11, 101.23 in costs. ECF Nod. 61, 62. On February 7, 2013, the Clerk of Court taxed $1, 211.45 in costs in favor of Axel. ECF No. 70. The court now considers the motion for attorneys' fees.
In an action under § 1983, "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party... a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). "To be a prevailing party, a plaintiff must succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit." Gill v. Maciejewski , 546 F.3d 557, 565 (8th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In the present case, Griffin does not dispute that Axel is a prevailing party. As a result, only the reasonable amount of fees, if any, is at issue.
Because of the court's extensive contact with the parties and familiarity with the issues, determination of the reasonable amount of attorney fees is "peculiarly within the... court's discretion." Greater Kan. City Laborers Pension Fund v. Thummel , 738 F.2d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 1984). In assessing the reasonableness of fees, the court considers:
(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions;
(3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.
Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 430 n.3 (1983) (citation omitted). The court need not "examine exhaustively and explicitly, in every case, all of the factors that are relevant to the amount of a fee award." Griffin v. Jim Jamison, Inc. , 188 F.3d 996, 997 (8th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). "The starting point in determining attorney fees is the lodestar, which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rates." Hanig v. Lee , 415 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In calculating the reasonable number of hours expended, the court excludes hours that are "excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary." Hensley , 461 U.S. at 434. Griffin argues that the fee award should be reduced by $68, 626.00 due to time entries that he argues are insufficiently documented or are redundant, excessive or unnecessary. See Skarda Decl. Exs. 1-3. The court disagrees. Such a reduction overstates the amount of redundant and unnecessary time spent.
Nonetheless, the court finds that some of the requested attorneys' fees are for unnecessary tasks. Specifically, the court finds that the hours associated with the December 6, 2013, "focus group" to be unnecessary. See Irlbeck Aff. Ex. 3, at 12-13. In so doing, the court notes its familiarity with the requirements of trial preparation and strategy for trial lawyers. Although Axel's attorneys may have believed that such a focus group was necessary for trial preparation, the court finds that such an expense was not necessary in this relatively simple case, and is not a cost that Griffin should reasonably be expected to bear. See Denesha v. Farmers Ins. Exch. , 976 F.Supp. 1276, 1291 (W.D. Mo. 1997) (disallowing attorneys' fees for mock trial session), reversed in part on other grounds, 161 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 1998). As a result, ...