Opinion
No. 95 C 7687
September 7, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs David Johnson and Mitchell Versher brought a civil rights action against the defendants City of Harvey, et al. After a bench trial, this court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and awarded them compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants appealed. In a July 21, 1999 order, the Seventh Circuit affirmed this court's judgment. The appellate court's mandate issued on September 15, 1999. Plaintiffs now seek an award of attorney's fees for expenses arising from defendants' unsuccessful appeal.
Section 1988 of Title 42, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (West 2000), allows courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees to prevailing parties in federal civil rights actions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The statute permits a fee award not only for successful prosecution of a case at trial, but also for successful defense of a favorable judgment on appeal. See Ustrak v. Fairman, 851 F.2d 983, 990 (7th Cir. 1988); Bond v. Stanton, 630 F.2d 1231, 1234 (7th Cir. 1980). In addition, civil rights plaintiffs may be reimbursed for fees incurred in preparing a fee petition. See Leffler v. Meer, 60 F.3d 369, 372 (7th Cir. 1995).
The court finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. See Bond, 630 F.2d at 1233 (stating that prevailing civil rights plaintiffs should receive fees under § 1988 "as a matter of course"). The plaintiffs "had no choice but to incur [expenses] or forfeit [their] victory in the district court" and they deserve to be reimbursed for the fees incurred. Ustrak, 851 F.2d at 990. The court also finds that the $28,122.50 sought by plaintiffs for the work involved in the appeal and the instant fee petition is a reasonable amount. The fee applicants have discharged their burden of documenting the reasonableness of the rates requested and the hours expended in this case. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983). Specifically, the rates charged by the attorneys properly reflect their ability and experience and are consonant with the prevailing market rates. Moreover, the plaintiffs' detailed time entries indicate that the hours expended in this case were reasonably and necessarily incurred.
Notably, the defendants were given leave to file objections to the instant fee petition, but they declined to do so. And indeed, the plaintiffs have taken care to ensure that the requested fees are reasonable. They eliminated from their fee petition all charges for paralegals' and law clerks' time. Plaintiffs also reduced the number of hours requested by eliminating double-billing. For instance, although two or more attorneys attended the oral argument, plaintiffs requested fees for only one attorney's time. Additionally, plaintiffs did not include fees for the work of two senior attorneys who assisted the responsible attorney with this case.
Lastly, public policy considerations support the award of fees. Section 1988 manifests Congressional intent to induce "vigorous enforcement of civil rights" by compensating lawyers who represent persons with civil rights grievances. Dunning v. Simmons Airlines, Inc., 62 F.3d 863, 873 n. 13 (7th Cir. 1995). See also Charles v. Daley, 846 F.2d 1057, 1063 (7th Cir. 1988) (noting that section 1988 seeks to reimburse those who act as "private attorney generals"). A fee award in the present case ensures that plaintiffs' success at trial is protected in the face of an appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for attorneys' fees is granted. Plaintiffs are hereby awarded $28,122.50 in fees.