Mark v. New Orleans City, 2:15-cv-07103

Plaintiff Yadi Mark sued the City of New Orleans and the mayor under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act; the parties entered a consent judgment approved by the district court on November 29, 2016.
The District Court referred determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the Magistrate Judge and ordered summary-judgment briefing on the fee petition.
Mark sought $41,493.15 in attorneys’ fees and $6,829.00 in costs; defendants opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on fees and costs.
The Magistrate evaluated whether Mark was a "prevailing party," the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours (lodestar), potential Johnson-factor adjustments, and allowable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
The court reduced counsel’s requested hourly rates, deducted 2.06 hours ($507.50) for a clerical billing error, approved expert and travel costs, and denied any further Johnson-factor upward adjustment.
Recommendation: award $32,104.65 in attorneys’ fees and $6,829.36 in costs (total $38,934.01); defendants’ cross-motion was granted in part (rate reductions) and denied in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mark is a "prevailing party" under the ADA	Consent judgment and court approval make Mark a prevailing party entitled to fees	Settlement was voluntary; no judicial imprimatur so no prevailing-party status (citing Buckhannon)	The court held the signed consent judgment and court approval provide the necessary "judicial imprimatur," so Mark is a prevailing party
Reasonableness of hourly rates	Requested rates: $325 (Bizer), $225 (DeReus), $200 (Florman), $150 (Klevorn); paralegal rate requested	Defendants argued rates were excessive for the district's market	Court reduced rates to $275 (Bizer), $175 (DeReus), $150 (Florman & Klevorn), $90 (paralegal) as reasonable for the district
Reasonableness of hours expended (lodestar hours)	Counsel submitted detailed billing; made a voluntary 13% reduction but missed 2.06 hours	Defendants sought larger reductions for research, settlement, interoffice communications, drafting motion	Court found hours reasonable after line-by-line review, but deducted 2.06 hours ($507.50) for clerical error; otherwise accepted billing judgment
Recoverable costs and experts	Sought expert fees (Heybeck $4,721.79; Maffey $900), expert travel $325.07, transportation $370, filing and service fees	Defendants contested necessity of experts and some expenses	Court allowed filing and service fees and approved expert and travel costs under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 as necessarily incurred

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (Sup. Ct.) (judicial imprimatur required for prevailing-party status)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct.) (lodestar method and billing judgment principles for fee awards)
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.) (Johnson factors for adjusting lodestar)
Green v. Administrators of the Tulane Educ. Fund, 284 F.3d 642 (5th Cir.) (fee-award principles and lodestar discussion)
Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041 (5th Cir.) (lodestar calculation guidance)
La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319 (5th Cir.) (fee applicant bears burden to prove reasonableness)
Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir.) (courts should not permit defendant to litigate tenaciously then complain about plaintiff's responsive fees)
Brantley v. Surles, 804 F.2d 321 (5th Cir.) (sufficiency of findings in fee awards)
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (Sup. Ct.) (cost recovery limited to categories in §1920)
Rodriguez v. Investco, L.L.C., 305 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (M.D. Fla.) (criticizing routine, pre-suit ADA filings and discussing fee-driven litigation dynamics)