Andy Montanez v. Joseph Simon
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11686
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Montanez received a $2,000 jury verdict against the City of Chicago and two officers for Fourth Amendment claims.
- Plaintiffs’ lawyers sought over $426,000 in fees and about $6,500 in costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; the district court awarded far less.
- Seven lawyers billed approximately 1,021 hours; several were excluded or discounted for inefficiency or lack of necessity.
- The district court reduced hourly rates (to $385 for lead lawyers and $175 for junior associates) and then cut the lodestar by 50% due to limited success on the merits.
- The court also scrutinized costs line-by-line, disallowing non-necessary or improperly documented items and capping transcript costs under local rules.
- The final fee award was $108,350.87; costs awarded were $3,051.94; the court emphasized trial courts’ case-management authority to curb excessive fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the lodestar properly calculated and reduced? | Montanez argues the district court misapplied hours and rates, over-discounting due to partial success. | City contends the court correctly discounted hours and applied a reasonable 50% lodestar reduction given limited success. | No abuse; lodestar reasonable with a 50% reduction for limited success. |
| Were the hourly rates reasonable? | Montanez asserts market rates support $400–$450 for lead attorneys and $250–$300 for associates. | City contends district court properly found market rates and relied on community evidence rather than contingent-fee agreements. | Yes; rates of $385 (lead) and $175 (associates) within reasonable range. |
| Did the district court correctly exclude or reduce hours billed? | Montanez argues many deductions were improper or too aggressive. | City asserts overstaffing, duplicative work, and esoteric research warranted reductions; entries adequately challenged. | Yes; court acted within discretion to exclude unnecessary, duplicative, or inadequately documented time. |
| Was the line-by-line objections process proper and sufficient? | Montanez contends objections were not in a formal memorandum, limiting defense of entries. | City's objections provided sufficient specificity to allow response; format favored practicality. | Yes; district court may strike entries with opportunity to respond. |
| Were costs properly awarded and limited under Rule 54 and local rules? | Montanez argues more transcript and printing costs were recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and § 1988. | City asserts only costs reasonably necessary and allowed by § 1920 and Local Rule 54.1 were recoverable. | Yes; district court correctly limited costs; Local Rule 54.1 and § 1920 controls applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (establishes lodestar and factors for adjusting for partial success)
- Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2011) (levels of deference to lodestar and non-merits factors)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (U.S. 2011) (limits judicial micromanagement of fee awards)
- Johnson v. GDF, Inc., 668 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 2012) (market rate evidence and discretion in determining rates)
- Moriarty v. Svec, 233 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (district court’s discretion in determining reasonable rates and markets)
- Richardson v. City of Chicago, 740 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2014) (across-the-board lodestar reductions for partial success guidance)
- Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 223 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2000) (district court discretion to strike vague or unjustified billing)
- Anderson v. AB Painting & Sandblasting Inc., 578 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2009) (red flags when fee requests dwarf the damages; proportionality)
- Kurowski v. Krajewski, 848 F.2d 767 (7th Cir. 1988) (reasonableness of research and exploration in fee petitions)