Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 3:05-cv-01342

Plaintiff Dee, Jr. sued the Borough of Dunmore and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations related to his eight-year employment suspension as a firefighter.
The jury found a due process violation but rejected the First Amendment stigma-plus claim and the state-law defamation/privacy-related claims; compensatory damages were $150,000 and punitive damages $6,000, later reduced on remittitur to $50,000 and $0, respectively.
Dee rejected the remittitur, leading to a second jury trial on compensatory damages which awarded $47,500.
Prior to the second trial, the Borough offered Rule 68 judgment of $60,000 inclusive of damages and post-offer costs; Dee did not accept the offer.
After trial, Dee sought attorney’s fees and costs, and the defendants moved to compel production of opposing counsel’s time records; the court denied the production motion and awarded a reduced fee and costs award.
The order grants $60,000 in fees and $6,938.56 in costs, and denies the defense counsel’s time records request and certain post-offer fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-offer fees are recoverable under Rule 68.	Dee argues the Offer of Judgment is defective and fees post-offer should be allowed.	Defendants contend Rule 68 precludes post-offer fees when the offer is more favorable than the final judgment.	Post-offer fees are not recoverable; Dee is precluded from seeking hours/costs incurred after the October 4, 2010 offer.
Whether the fee petition properly excludes non-compensable hours and excessive time.	Dee seeks lodestar without excluding overlapping, vague, or unrelated hours.	Defendants identify specific non-compensable hours and seek reductions; the court must deduct those hours.	The court deducted overlapping, vague, withdrawn, press-related, and unrelated hours, reducing the lodestar and related costs.
Whether a downward adjustment of the lodestar is warranted given the degree of success.	Pollick’s lodestar reflects significant success for Dee.	Because Dee did not prevail on stigma-plus and certain state-law claims, the award should be reduced.	A downward departure from the lodestar was warranted; total award set at $60,000 in fees plus $6,938.56 in costs.
Whether the court should enhance the fee award based on results obtained.	Dee seeks enhanced fees for favorable results.	Enhancement is not supported by the record.	No 50% enhancement awarded.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (establishes lodestar method and discretion to adjust for success)
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (Rule 68 offers and inclusion of costs in judgments)
Pub. Interest Research Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179 (3d Cir. 1995) (practice of deducting or adjusting fees for non-compensable time)
Loughner v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 260 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2001) (guidance on reasonably expended hours and rate relevance)
Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2001) (establishes market-rate analysis and evidence requirements)
Le v. Univ. of Pa., 321 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2003) (addresses calculation and comparison in Rule 68 context)