Stahl v. East Porter County School Corp., 981 F. Supp. 2d 805

Plaintiffs sued Porter Township School Corp. and others in state court asserting federal constitutional and state tort claims for denial of open enrollment; defendants removed under federal-question jurisdiction.
Defendants served a qualified settlement offer (per Indiana Code § 34-50-1-1 et seq.) on Sept. 26, 2012 and later moved for summary judgment; plaintiffs did not oppose the Porter Township defendants’ motion.
Depositions (including George Stahl) and a counsel-to-counsel discussion on Oct. 31, 2012 indicated plaintiffs’ federal claim likely lacked a factual basis.
The court granted summary judgment for defendants on April 30, 2013. Defendants then moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Indiana Code § 34-50-1-6; the § 1988 motion was filed late but the court found excusable neglect.
The court awarded § 1988 fees only for the period after Oct. 31, 2012 (when claim became untenable), directed submission of supplemental affidavit for post-judgment work, and rejected application of Indiana Code § 34-50-1-6 in federal court because it conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of §1988 fee motion	Plaintiffs opposed fees; argued (implicitly) late filing	Defendants filed §1988 motion 29 days after judgment and argued excusable neglect	Court found late filing attributable to excusable neglect and permitted reduced §1988 award
Entitlement to §1988 fees (prevailing defendant)	Plaintiffs maintained claim was reasonable at first	Defendants argued claim became frivolous/untenable after discovery (Stahl depo)	Court held federal claims were not frivolous ab initio but became untenable after Oct. 31, 2012; §1988 fees warranted from that date forward
Applicability of Indiana §34‑50‑1‑6 (qualified settlement offer)	Plaintiffs did not contest §34‑50‑1‑6 request on record	Defendants sought fees under §34‑50‑1‑6 based on rejected qualified offer	Court held §34‑50‑1‑6 conflicts with Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 and is not available in this federal action
Fee calculation method	N/A	Defendants submitted affidavits showing hours and $150/hr rate	Court accepted $150/hr as reasonable, limited award to hours attributable to federal claim after Oct.31,2012, and ordered supplemental affidavit to finalize lodestar

S.A. Healy Co. v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 60 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 1995) (state post‑offer sanction statute not governed by Rule 54 and gives way where it directly conflicts with Rule 68)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (factors for excusable neglect)
Crue v. Aiken, 370 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2004) (Rule 6(b) excusable neglect analysis for late fee motions)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (prevailing defendant §1988 fees require claim frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless or continued litigation after that became clear)
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) (attorney’s fees that are authorized by statute count as Rule 68 "costs")
Delta Air Lines v. August, 450 U.S. 346 (1981) (Rule 68 does not authorize post‑offer costs when defendant prevails)
Roger Whitmore’s Auto. Servs., Inc. v. Lake County, Ill., 424 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing weak vs. frivolous claims for §1988 purposes)
Khan v. Gallitano, 180 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 1999) (same; caution against equating weak claims with frivolous claims)