Same-sex marriage recognition lawsuit attorney's fees motion

8/10/2019 Same-sex marriage recognition lawsuit attorney's fees motion

1/60

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES

MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL

JONELL EVANS, individually;STACIA IRELAND, individually;MARINA GOMBERG, individually;ELENOR HEYBORNE, individually;MATTHEW BARRAZA, individually; andKARL FRITZ SHULTZ, individually,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

STATE OF UTAH, GARY R. HERBERT,in his official capacity as Governor of Utah,and SEAN D. REYES, in his officialcapacity as Attorney General of Utah,

Defendants - Appellants,

No. 14-4060

Appellate Case: 14-4060 Document: 01019338298 Date Filed: 11/10/2014 Page: 1


2/60

2

Plaintiff-Appellees JoNell Evans, Stacia Ireland, Marina Gomberg, Elenor Heyborne,

Matthew Barraza, Tony Milner, Donald Johnson, and Karl Fritz Schultz (collectively referred to

as the Plaintiffs) by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby submit this Motion and

Memorandum for Attorneys Fees and Costs. As outlined below, Defendants State of Utah,

Governor Gary Herbert, and Attorney General Sean Reyes (Defendants) should be required to

pay Plaintiffs attorneys fees in the amount of $26,253.50 and costs in the amount of $225.00

for a total award of $26,478.50. Additionally, as outlined below, the Court should augment, or

increase, this amount by 25% over the base amount because of the risk counsel assumed and the

likelihood that Plaintiffs would have had difficulty finding counsel in this case without fee

enhancement.

INTRODUCTION

As the District Court recognized in its injunction opinion, this case deals with whether

Utahs marriage bans preclude the State of Utah from recognizing the same-sex marriages that

already occurred in Utah between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014.Memorandum

Decision & Order,dated 5/19/2014, Dkt. #45, at 12. Plaintiffs, and more than 1,000 other same-

sex couples, legally married under the laws of Utah, after this court enjoined the state from

enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage inKitchen v. Herbert,961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D. Utah

2013).On January 8, 2014, the Defendants announced that they would not grant recognition to

any of those marriages.

When Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, no federal or state court in Utah or this Circuit

Court had ruled on the legality of marital rights given and then summarily taken away. Thus,

Plaintiffs were in uncharted legal territory. Because Defendants refusal to recognize their

marriages inflicted daily, ongoing harms to their family integrity, their finances, their dignity,

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4695a542699611e381b8b0e9e015e69e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=961+F.Supp.2d+1181https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4695a542699611e381b8b0e9e015e69e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=961+F.Supp.2d+1181https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4695a542699611e381b8b0e9e015e69e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=961+F.Supp.2d+1181https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4695a542699611e381b8b0e9e015e69e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=961+F.Supp.2d+1181https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4695a542699611e381b8b0e9e015e69e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=961+F.Supp.2d+1181https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4695a542699611e381b8b0e9e015e69e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=961+F.Supp.2d+1181https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4695a542699611e381b8b0e9e015e69e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=961+F.Supp.2d+1181


3/60

3

and their psychological well-being, Plaintiffs needed to charge into that territory as quickly and

effectively as possible, and do so with able counsel. All of the counsel for Plaintiffs agreed to

represent Plaintiffs without charging fees of any sort. They did so despite knowing that the

demands on their time and skills would be rigorous and the risk that they might never be

compensated for their time was high. The demands on Plaintiffs attorneys time over many

months proved to be immense, as the case proceeded on an expedited track and resulted in over a

thousand pages of legal filings in a short period of time. Ultimately, Plaintiffs successfully

challenged Defendants steadfast refusal to honor their vested marital rights, and the District

Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the State of Utah to recognize all marriages

between same sex-couples performed with Utah licenses.

After that, the State appealed to this Court, first seeking a stay of the injunction pending

appeal and then proceeding to briefing. When this Court denied Defendants request for a stay,

they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted the stay over Plaintiffs objection.

However, the State itself mooted the entire stay issue when it voluntarily dismissed its appeal on

October 7, 2014, effectively granting the relief Plaintiffs sought.

Given the high degree of skill, experience, willingness to accept risk, and dedication

necessary to reach this successful conclusion, Plaintiffs now move this Court to order Defendants

pay for their reasonable attorneys fees and costs through November 10, 2014, pursuant to42

U.S.C. 1988.

LEGAL STANDARD

In an action to enforce the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court, in its discretion,

may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorneys fee as part

of the costs . . . .42 U.S.C. 1988(b).A prevailing party under 1983 is entitled to reasonable

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988#sk=4.am1p43https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988#sk=4.am1p43https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988#sk=4.am1p43https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988#sk=4.am1p43https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NF7A49150AFF711D8803AE0632FEDDFBF/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1988


4/60

4

attorneys fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.Hensley v.

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983).Further, the prevailing party may also claim appeal-related

attorneys fees.Hoyt v. Robson Companies, Inc. 11 F.3d 983, 985(10thCir. 1993); accordFlitton

v. Primary Residential Mortg., Inc. 614 F.3d 1173, 1179 (10thCir. 2010).

The court must begin by determining a lodestar amount, which is the number of hours

reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.Hensleyat 433.

The first step in calculating such a reasonable fee is determining a reasonable number of hours

spent on the litigation.Malloy v. Monahan, 73 F.3d 1012, 1017 (10th Cir. 1996).The second

step is multiplying the hours by a reasonable rate.Id.at 1018.A reasonable rate is the

prevailing market rate in the relevant community.Id.To show their rates are reasonable,

Plaintiffs must:

produce satisfactory evidencein addition to the attorneys own affidavitsthatthe requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similarservices by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Arate determined this way is normally deemed to be reasonable and is referred toas the prevailing market rate.

Guides, Ltd. v. Yarmouth Grp. Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 295 F.3d 1065, 1078 (10th Cir. 2002)(quoting

Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11, (1984)).

Once an applicant for attorneys fees has carried the burden of showing that the claimed

rate and number of hours are reasonable then the resulting product is presumed to be a

reasonable fee under 42 U.S.C. 1988.Cooper v. State of Utah, 894 F.2d 1169, 1171 (10th

Cir. 1990).However, that does not end the inquiry. The district court may consider other factors,

including the results obtained, in adjusting the fee upward or downward.Hensley, 461 U.S. at

434.The most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of

success obtained.Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992).If a plaintiff has obtained

excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee which usually

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+429#co_pp_sp_780_429https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+429#co_pp_sp_780_429https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+429#co_pp_sp_780_429https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+429#co_pp_sp_780_429https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+429#co_pp_sp_780_429https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+433#co_pp_sp_780_433https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+433#co_pp_sp_780_433https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+433#co_pp_sp_780_433https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+433#co_pp_sp_780_433https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1017#co_pp_sp_506_1017https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1017#co_pp_sp_506_1017https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1017#co_pp_sp_506_1017https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1017#co_pp_sp_506_1017https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibb9c464c79db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=295+F.3d+1078#co_pp_sp_506_1078https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibb9c464c79db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=295+F.3d+1078#co_pp_sp_506_1078https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibb9c464c79db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=295+F.3d+1078#co_pp_sp_506_1078https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I178e20d49c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=465+U.S.+895#co_footnote_B012111984114238https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I178e20d49c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=465+U.S.+895#co_footnote_B012111984114238https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I178e20d49c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=465+U.S.+895#co_footnote_B012111984114238https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I178e20d49c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=465+U.S.+895#co_footnote_B012111984114238https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibb9c464c79db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=295+F.3d+1078#co_pp_sp_506_1078https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1018#co_pp_sp_506_1018https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae8c8d6a91e711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=73+F.3d+1017#co_pp_sp_506_1017https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+433#co_pp_sp_780_433https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+429#co_pp_sp_780_429https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+429#co_pp_sp_780_429


5/60

5

encompasses all hours reasonably spent on the litigation and in some exceptional cases may

include an enhanced award.Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435.In such circumstances, the fee award

should not be reduced simply because the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in

the lawsuit.Id.

ARGUMENT

The District Court granted Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction.Evans et al v.

Herbert et al., Case No. 2:14cv55 DAK (D. Utah), Dkt. No. 45. Defendants then appealed to this

Court for stay of the injunction pending its appeal, which Plaintiffs opposed. This Court refused

the stay request, later granted by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, after the Supreme Court

refused Defendants Writ of Certiorari inKitchen v. Herbert, Defendants subsequently dismissed

its appeal in this case on October 7, 2014, resulting in Plaintiffs obtaining the most important

relief that they sought: state recognition of their marriages and the recognition of the marriages

of other similarly situated same-sex couples across Utah.Evans et al v. Herbert et al., Case No.

2:14cv55 DAK (D. Utah), Dkt. No. 01019323162, Oct. 8, 2014. There can be no dispute that

Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this appeal under 1988(b), and are thus entitled to an

award of reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. For the reasons that follow, the fees and

expenses that they have requested in this petition are reasonable.

I. PLAINTIFFS LODESTAR CALCULATION IS REASONABLE

A. The Number of Hours Expended on the Litigation was Reasonable

Considering both the legal claims asserted and the speed with which they had to act,

Plaintiffs counsels hours in this petition were necessary to Plaintiffs success. In asserting this,

the moving party bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the hours claimed by

submitting adequate documentation of those hours. SeeHensley, 461 U.S. at 437.The Court

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+437#co_pp_sp_780_437https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+437#co_pp_sp_780_437https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+437#co_pp_sp_780_437https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+437#co_pp_sp_780_437https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+437#co_pp_sp_780_437https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435


6/60

6

should not grant a fee award for hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.

Id. at 434. Plaintiffs attorneys have explained why they believe the hours claimed were

reasonable and necessary to the litigation. Strindberg Decl. 11-16;Block Decl. 11-13, 19;

andMejia Decl. 8, 11-19.1They have also provided detailed time sheets to the Court to

document the hours and the tasks that were completed. Strindberg Decl. 19;Block Decl. 16;

andMejia Decl. 20.

In addition to Plaintiffs counselsdeclarations supporting the reasonableness of the

hours expended, the facts also support an award of all requested fees. As this Court is aware, the

circumstances of this case were unique and several issues in the case presented matters of first

impression in any court nationwide. While there have been some other instances of states

attempting to strip valid marriages of recognition, those cases involved circumstances different

than those at issue here. Accordingly, this litigation involved substantial research to formulate

and bolster the theories that were ultimately advanced on Plaintiffs behalf. Likewise,

Defendants responsive theories required extensive research and analysis. Ultimately, it is no

surprise that in just a few months, the parties submitted lengthy briefs, including those on

Defendants stay request,on complex state and federal constitutional issues.

Plaintiffs counsel litigated this case efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of

effort. Strindberg Decl. 12;Block Decl. 11-12. For example, because of ACLU LGBT

Projects extensive experience with the complex and important constitutional issues involved in

this case, Mr. Block, ACLU LGBT Project Staff Attorney, took primary responsibility for

preparing initial drafts of the opposition to stay in both this Court and in the Supreme Court,

1The supporting declarations are attached as follows: Declaration of Erik Strindberg

(Strindberg Decl.) is Exhibit (Ex.)A; Declaration of John Mejia (Mejia Decl.) is Ex. B;Declaration of Joshua Block (Block Decl.) is Ex. C; Declaration of Brett L. Tolman (TolmanDecl.) is Ex. D; and Declaration of Deborah A. Ferguson (Ferguson Decl.) is Ex. E.

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+434#co_pp_sp_780_434https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+434#co_pp_sp_780_434


7/60

7

which were then reviewed and edited by co-counsel.Block Decl. 12. Strindberg & Scholnicks

team contributed significantly to all briefs including the opposition to both stays, were the

primary contacts with the state assistant attorney generals, and monitored the evolving cases of

second parent adoptions by same-sex married couples in Utah state court, as those cases had

direct bearing on the irreparable harms at issue in this case. Strindberg Decl. 10.

John Mejia drafted the opposition to Defendants request for more time and, along with

Leah Farrell also of ACLU of Utah, edited and helped finalize all briefing and communicated

with the eight Plaintiffs during the rapidly evolving course of the litigation. Strindberg Decl.

14-15;Mejia Decl. 18-20, Ex. A.

It cannot be fairly argued that the successful collaboration between the three firms for

Plaintiffs in this case caused excessive or duplicative work. To the contrary, Defendants

unbending refusal to recognize their marriages presented an ongoing daily emergency in

Plaintiffs lives and in those of all married same sex couples; only a court order could compel

Defendants to honor their marriages in the foreseeable future. An all hands on deck approach

by a team of attorneys was not only desirable but necessary to achieve meaningful relief in this

case. Because Plaintiffs attorneys had to engage in an incredible amount of strategizing, legal

research and analysis, drafting, editing, and communication to litigate this case on an expedited

basis, more than one attorney sometimes engaged on the same or similar tasks. That fact alone

does not mean that the work was excessive, duplicative, or redundant. To the contrary, when two

or more attorneys cooperated, the work product was invariably improved, making for a more

effective and straight forward presentation of issues and arguments. These improvements, in

turn, led to a clearer and more streamlined process for the Court and all of the parties. It was

crucial to the goal of the litigation, achieving a quick rebuke of Defendants unconstitutional



8/60

8

actions, to present clear written claims and arguments for the Court. Further, as the legal issues

were of first impression, several lawyers researched the analogous cases and useful precedent to

ensure that our legal arguments were on point and correct.

Defendants will inevitably pore through Plaintiffs time reports in an effort to identify

what they believe are redundancies. The Court should scrutinize such arguments, because it is in

the Defendants interest to discount the realities of having to formulate and bring a complex and

novel case in a condensed period of time against highly skilled, motivated, and well-resourced

governmental Defendants. Moreover, Defendants themselves sought and were granted an

extension of time on filing their opening brief in this appeal, basing that request on the novelty

and complexity of the issues presented.Evans et al. v. Herbert et al., Case No. 14-4060, Doc No.

010109297925 at 7-8. (Regarding the complexity of the case, . . . counsel would merely point to

the fact that this case presents novel questions of both federal and state law. . . .) Unlike

Defendants counsel, who had no reason to expedite their work, Plaintiffs counsel had an ethical

duty to submit effective filings on an expedited basis, because time was of the essence and

failure was not an option. The Court should take all of this into account when considering

Defendants anticipated and likely facile contentions and opinions about supposed excess and

duplication of work by Plaintiffs counsel.

Additionally, Defendants actions and filingsadded to the number of hours Plaintiffs

counsel had to dedicate to the case. For example, Plaintiffs had to oppose Defendants Motion to

Extend Time to File their opening brief. This action added time and expense and set the case

back.

Under all of the circumstances, the number of hours expended by Plaintiffs counsel on

the litigation was reasonable and necessary to achieve the positive and completely successful



9/60

9

outcome. Any arguments by the Defendants to the contrary should be rejected, particularly line-

item attacks on the billings with the luxury of time and hindsight and a lack of perspective on the

realities of what it took to succeed in this case which was of incredible importance to the public

in Utah.

B. The Hourly Rates are Reasonable

Plaintiffs have submitted the following rates for six attorneys who worked substantially

on this case: Erik Strindberg, $300 per hour; Lauren I. Scholnick, $275 per hour; Kathryn

Harstad, $250 per hour; John Mejia, $245 per hour; Leah Farrell, $205 per hour; and Joshua A.

Block, $350 per hour. Strindberg Decl. 25, 27;Block Decl. 18; andMejia Decl. 21. As

shown below, each of these attorneys has unique skills and experience, which created an efficient

and complimentary legal team, eliminated redundancy and maximized Plaintiffs chances of

success.

Erik Strindberg has developed extensive federal civil litigation experience over his 31

year career. For 19 years, Mr. Strindberg practiced employment and labor law for two different

private firms in Salt Lake City. During that time, Mr. Strindberg tried cases in various state and

federal courts. In 2002, Mr. Strindberg started his own firm with partner Lauren Scholnick.

Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC, is a boutique employment law firm primarily representing

employees and plaintiffs. Over his 31 years of practice, Mr. Strindberg has been counsel on

hundreds of federal civil cases, many of those before the United States Court of the District of

Utah and on appeals before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. As lead counsel, Mr. Strindberg

handled and tried a wide variety of complex federal civil litigation cases including statutory,

constitutional, and tort claims. Mr. Strindberg is also active in the legal community in Utah and

has served as a member and/or officer of a number of professional organizations such as the



10/60

10

Federal Bar AssociationUtah Chapter, Salt Lake County Bar, and Utah Legal Services Board

of Trustees. In 2003, Mr. Strindberg was named the Utah State Bars Employment Lawyer of the

Year. Strindberg Decl. 2-4.

Lauren Scholnick and Kathryn Harstad, the two other Strindberg & Scholnick partners

who regularly worked on this case, also brought significant experience to Plaintiffs legal team.

Ms. Scholnick, founding partner of Strindberg and Scholnick, has practiced law for over 19 years

since graduating from the University of Illinois College of Law. After law school, Ms. Scholnick

clerked for one year with Judge Gregory K. Orme at the Utah Court of Appeals. She then worked

as a Staff Attorney and Development Director at Utah Legal Services, Inc. and in private practice

where she litigated a variety of cases involving state and federal claims. Ms. Scholnick founded

Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC, with Erik Strindberg in 2002, where she focuses her practice on

employment and discrimination matters. She is licensed to practice in Utah, Idaho and Illinois

(inactive). In her 19 years of practice, Ms. Scholnick has acquired extensive experience litigating

complex federal and state claims. Strindberg Decl. 26(a).

Ms. Harstad, also a partner at Strindberg & Scholnick, has been practicing since 2000

when she graduated from the University of Minnesota Law School. After law school, Ms.

Harstad worked for a large firm in Chicago where she defended nation-wide class actions,

practiced white collar defense, and litigated other complex cases involving multi-district

litigation. In 2005, Ms. Harstad clerked for the Utah Court of Appeals before becoming an

associate at Strindberg & Scholnick in 2006. She became a partner at Strindberg & Scholnick in

2010. Ms. Harstad has over 14 years experience litigating state and federal claims and is

licensed to practice in Utah, Idaho, Minnesota, and Illinois. Strindberg Decl. 26(b).



11/60

11

John Mejia and Leah Farrell, both with the ACLU of Utah, brought a wealth of civil

rights expertise to the Plaintiffs team. Mr. Mejia graduated with honors from the University of

Chicago Law School in 2003. After law school he went into private practice at the Chicago law

firm of Sidley Austin, LLP, where he was a litigation attorney in the insurance group and

litigated matters in both state and federal court. In 2008, he moved to Salt Lake and clerked for

Judge Tena Campbell until 2009 and then clerked for Judge Clark Waddoups from 20092012.

In January 2012, he became Legal Director for the ACLU of Utah, where he regularly brings

state and federal actions on behalf of clients in defense of their civil rights.Mejia Decl. 2-4.

Ms. Farrell joined the ACLU of Utah as a Staff Attorney in August of 2011 after her

graduation from the University of Texas School of Law. As Staff Attorney for the ACLU of

Utah, Ms. Farrell regularly litigates civil rights cases.Mejia Decl. 23. Plaintiffs are requesting

hourly rates of $245/hour for Mr. Mejias work and $205/hour for Ms. Farrells work. While

these rates are somewhat higher than those billed by Strindberg & Scholnick associate attorneys

with similar years of practice, they are comparable to rates granted in this District for attorneys

working for regional non-profit corporations that specialize in the subject matter of the suit

brought. SeeClayton v. Steinagel, 2012 WL 6624203 *1-*2 (D. Utah)(allowing hourly rates of

$275/hour for a non-profit attorney with 13 years of experience and $240 for one with 8 years).

Further, since the ACLU of Utah does not charge clients and thus has no established hourly rate,

the most logical point of comparison is another not-for-profit specialty firm.

Joshua Block, is a Staff Attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project, which is the division of

the national ACLU committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual,

and transgender people and their families. He graduated from Yale School of Law in 2005 and

then clerked for Judge Robert D. Sack of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203


12/60

12

2005 to 2006. From 2006 to 2010, he was a litigation associate in the New York offices of Jenner

and Block, LLP. In 2010, he joined the ACLU LGBT Project where he has litigated a variety of

complex cases in state and federal courts involving the civil rights of LGBT individuals. He has

also argued cases before trial and appellate courts, including federal circuit courts of appeal. Mr.

Block is an expert on legal matters involving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)

people. For example, Mr. Block was one of the ACLU LGBT Project attorneys who served as

counsel for Edie Windsor in her successful challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act in

United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).Mr. Block has also served as Plaintiffs

counsel in multiple same-sex marriage cases around the country, including Virginia, Missouri,

Kansas and Michigan. In addition to litigating LGBT cases, Mr. Block has taught and lectured

regarding LGBT legal issues.Block Decl. 3-10.

The Tenth Circuit has authorized district courts to award attorney's fees based on rates

higher than prevailing local rates in cases where the attorneys who seek the higher rates bring

special expertise and experience to the case.Hall v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 1997 WL

381956 (D. Kan. 1997);Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 899 F.2d 951, 983 (10th Cir. 1990);

Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 555 (10th Cir. 1983)(holding that unusual circumstances may

justify award of rates higher than local prevailing rates). Mr. Mejia, Ms. Farrell, and Mr. Block

have expertise in constitutional claims and are all experts in representing LGBT individuals in

cases involving marriage equality. Therefore, they are entitled to enhanced rates due to their

expertise. Further, Mr. Blocks expertise is even more salient as he practices in the area of

constitutional rights of LGBT individuals and has litigated same-sex marriage cases throughout

the country.Block Decl. 8-10. This Court has granted petitioning lawyers substantially higher

than market rates when they have demonstrated extensive experience in a needed area of law.

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I8852b120de6511e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=133+S.+Ct.+2675https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I8852b120de6511e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=133+S.+Ct.+2675https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I8852b120de6511e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=133+S.+Ct.+2675https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5c8891c5566511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=1997+WL+381956https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5c8891c5566511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=1997+WL+381956https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5c8891c5566511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=1997+WL+381956https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5c8891c5566511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=1997+WL+381956https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5c8891c5566511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=1997+WL+381956https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie325c790971d11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=899+F.2d+951https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie325c790971d11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=899+F.2d+951https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie325c790971d11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=899+F.2d+951https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie325c790971d11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=899+F.2d+951https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iba040d99940711d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=713+F.2d+at+555#co_pp_sp_350_555https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iba040d99940711d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=713+F.2d+at+555#co_pp_sp_350_555https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iba040d99940711d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=713+F.2d+at+555#co_pp_sp_350_555https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iba040d99940711d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=713+F.2d+at+555#co_pp_sp_350_555https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie325c790971d11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=899+F.2d+951https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5c8891c5566511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=1997+WL+381956https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5c8891c5566511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=1997+WL+381956https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I8852b120de6511e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=133+S.+Ct.+2675


13/60

13

SeePlascencia v. City of St. George, 2013 U.S. Dist. 2013 WL 4084099 *2 (D. Utah)(awarding

an appellate specialist for time spent on appeal $400/hour but only $250/hour for non-specialist).

Mr. Block brought unique experience that the rest of Plaintiffs lawyers did not have. Stindberg

Decl. 12. Further, his expertise saved the entire legal team substantial time in this litigation.

Stindberg Decl. 13. The complex and novel issues presented in this case coupled with the

unique and necessary expertise Mr. Block, Mr. Mejia and Ms. Farrell brought to the case justifies

their rates.

In addition to the deep well of expertise, the requested hourly rates are also justified by

the unique nature of this litigation and the risk that the attorneys might have worked hundreds of

hours without compensation. As further explained below in Plaintiffs request for a fee

augmentation, the pool of attorneys willing to take such a risk is small, which supports a rate on

the higher end of the range for the local community. Further, Plaintiffs counsel was required to

turn away or put aside other fee-paying matters to focus on this case. Stindberg Decl. 17. The

case also involved eight plaintiffs, each with unique backgrounds and life histories, multiplying

exponentially the investigative, drafting, and communication efforts that were required.

Plaintiffs counsel have also supported the reasonableness of their requested rates with

the declarations of Brett Tolman and Deborah Ferguson, both highly respected attorneys with

many years of experience practicing civil litigation. Mr. Tolman, who has 16 years of

experience, practices here in Utah and Ms. Ferguson, who has 28 years of experience, practices

in Idaho where the legal market and rates are comparable to Utah. Stindberg Decl. 24. Ms.

Ferguson represented the Plaintiffs inLatta et al. v. Otter, in which she and co-counsel

successfully challenged Idahos same-sex marriage bans. Case No. 1:13-cv-482 (D. Idaho), 14-

3520 (9thCir.)Ferguson Decl. 6.Thus, she is very familiar with the complex and novel issues

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If79da20a051211e3a98ec867961a22de/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+4084099https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If79da20a051211e3a98ec867961a22de/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+4084099https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If79da20a051211e3a98ec867961a22de/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+4084099https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If79da20a051211e3a98ec867961a22de/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+4084099https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If79da20a051211e3a98ec867961a22de/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+4084099


14/60

14

of first impression involved in this case. Ms. Ferguson not only supports that the rates requested

here are reasonable but also states that they are somewhat lower than what attorneys in Boise (a

smaller legal market than Salt Lake) doing specialized litigation charge.Ferguson Decl. 14.

Both attorneys state that the hourly rates requested by Plaintiffs are reasonable in light of the risk

involved and the skill necessary to successfully complete this case. Tolman Decl. 9;Ferguson

Decl. 10, 12.

Other cases involving fee awards by District Courts in Utah also support that the claimed

rates for Plaintiffs counsel in this case are reasonable. For example, inClayton v. Steinagel,the

Court held that the hourly rates of $240 for an attorney with 8 years of experience, $275 for an

attorney with 13 years of experience and $350 for an attorney with 36 years of experience were

reasonable and in line with prevailing market rates.No. 2:11-CV-379 DS (D. Utah), 2012 WL

6624203, at 1.InPlasencia v. City of St. George,the court found that $250 per hour was a

reasonable rate for an attorney with 15 years of experience. No. 2:07-CV-2 TS,2012 WL

256142, at *2 (D. Utah Jan. 27, 2012).Here, Plaintiffs are requesting $300 for Mr. Strindberg

who has 31 years of experience, $275 for Ms. Scholnick who has 19 years of experience and

$250 for Ms. Harstad who has 14 years of experience. These hourly rates fall squarely within or

are lower than the rates found to be reasonable and in line with prevailing market rates in

Clayton andPlasencia. The requested hourly rates for Mr. Block (9 years of experience at $350

per hour), Mr. Mejia (11 years of experience at $245 per hour) and Ms. Farrell (3 years of

experience at $205 per hour) are slightly higher than the rates in Clayton andPlasencia.

However, as outlined above, these slightly higher rates are justified because of their unique

expertise with cases involving the civil rights of LGBT individuals.

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3c7fa3a74b6a11e184e9d7899540bbc9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+256142https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72ce7a574ad511e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+6624203


15/60

15

Accordingly, the prevailing rate in the community for cases that pose a similar risk and

require a similarly high degree of skill, experience, and dedication justifies the reasonableness of

the rates that have been requested.

C. Requested Lodestar

The lodestar in this case totals $26,253.50 ($9,120 for Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC;

$3,754.50 for the ACLU; and $13,289 for ACLU LGBT Project). There is a presumption that

this is a reasonable fee in a civil rights case.Cooper, 894 F.2d at 1171.The most important

factor in determining appropriate attorneys fees is the degree of success that the attorneys have

obtained for their clients.Farrar, 506 U.S. at 114.Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent

results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee.Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435.

Defendants cannot dispute that counsels efforts resulted in a very high level of success. The trial

court concluded that Defendants had to recognize the Plaintiffs marriages and the marriages of

all Utah same-sex couples and subsequently dismissed its appeal challenging that ruling. There

were no claims lost or partial victories achieved.

This case resulted in a landmark decision that fully vindicated critical constitutional

rights of married same-sex couples in Utah. Moreover, the precedent set by this case will bolster

all marriages of any same-sex or different-sex couples in the future, because it clarified the

constitutional protections afforded to the vested rights of any marriage. Accordingly, Plaintiffs

are entitled to fully recover the reasonable attorneys fees that have been requested.

II. SUMMARY OF FEES

FIRM ATTORNEY RATES HOURS TOTAL AMOUNT

Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC $250-$300 34.85 $9,210.00

ACLU of Utah $205-$245 15.6 $3,754.50

ACLU LGBT Project $350 13.2 $13,289.00

Total 63.65 $26,253.50

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+at+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+at+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+at+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+at+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+at+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+at+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+at+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+at+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1773bb109c1f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=461+U.S.+at+435#co_pp_sp_780_435https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I72e754a09c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=506+U.S.+at+114#co_pp_sp_780_114https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic4519dc3971911d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=894+F.2d+at+1171#co_pp_sp_350_1171


16/60

16

III. THE COURT SHOULD AUGMENT THE REQUESTED FEE

Plaintiffs counsel are requesting a fee enhancement given the exceptional circumstances

of this case. Fee enhancements are viewed with caution and appropriate only in exceptional

cases.Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Meml Ctr., 963 F.2d 1352, 1360 (10th Cir. 1992)

(internal citation omitted). An exceptional case is one in which the attorney for the prevailing

party was, prior to litigation, confronted with a real risk of not prevailing and in which the

plaintiff would have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the local or other relevant

market.Id.

A.

The Plaintiffs had a Real Risk of Not Prevailing

To determine if a party faced a real risk of not prevailing the district court considers

whether the law in effect at the time the suit was filed was unsettled.Id.If so, the district court

may conclude, in the exercise of its discretion, that the attorney faced a real risk of not

prevailing.2Id.Augmentation of a fee award is appropriate only if there was a real risk of not

prevailing in the case.Parker v. Olympus Health Care, Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 998, 1005 (D.

Utah 2003).The burden of proving the risk is on the party seeking the enhancement to the

lodestar.Homeward Bound, 963 F.2d at 1360.At the time the complaint was filed in this case,

the Supreme Court had stayed the decision inKitchenpending final disposition of the Tenth

Circuit appeal. No United States Court of Appeals had yet ruled on the constitutionality of state

same-sex marriage bans. The U.S. District Court for Utah was the only court in the country that

had struck down a state same-sex marriage ban and allowed same-sex marriages to proceed.

2 District courts can also ask whether the outcome of the suit depended upon the resolution

of disputed facts in order to conclude the attorney faced a real risk of not prevailing.HomewardBound, 963 F.2d at 1360.But, that inquiry is not relevant here.

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+1005#co_pp_sp_4637_1005https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+1005#co_pp_sp_4637_1005https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+1005#co_pp_sp_4637_1005https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+1005#co_pp_sp_4637_1005https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+1005#co_pp_sp_4637_1005https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+1005#co_pp_sp_4637_1005https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+1005#co_pp_sp_4637_1005https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360


17/60

17

Further, no other state had left its citizens in marital limbo by revoking recognition of same-sex

marriages that took place before a stay was ordered.

Defendants, however, confidently asserted in public and argued in this Court that at least

until the federal appellate courts decided the underlying issue of whether Utahs marriage ban

was legal, Defendants were legally allowed to refuse to honor Utah marriages of same-sex

couples. A mere two days after the Supreme Court stay inKitchen, Defendants withdrew

recognition from marriages of same sex couples. This decision was a weighty one that

Defendants repeatedly acknowledged had daily negative implications on the lives of thousands

of its citizens, but one which they repeatedly assured the pubic was supported by law. While

there was some persuasive analogous case law otherwise, there was no directly on-point law

from any controlling court that squarely proved Defendants wrong. Thus, the law as it relates to

the claims in this case was unsettled when Plaintiffs attorneys undertook the case.

Moreover, Defendants have conceded time and again that Plaintiffs had a significant

chance of losing this case. Defendants repeatedly argued that this case presented a novel and

complex[] issue because [n]o other court has ever decided whether marriages, made lawful

by a district court temporarily enjoining state laws banning such marriages, somehow acquire

vested rights. State Defendants Appellants Reply in Support of Motions for Stay Pending

Appeal,Evans v. Herbert v. Case No. 14-4060, Doc. No. 01019261034, at 8. Additionally, as

Defendants pointed out in successfully seeking to extend their briefing schedule in this Court:

Thus, as Justice Sotomayor referred the stay on appeal in this matter to the entireCourt, the Court considered the harms and found they weighed in favor of Utah,found that four justices would vote to grant certiorari should this Court simplyaffirm the district court, and found a fair prospect that a majority of justices wouldvote to reverse the district courts grant of preliminary injunction in this matter.



18/60

18

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Opening Brief, Doc. No.

01019297925, at 5. Accordingly, Defendants asserted that there was a good chance that the

Supreme Court could have found that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the injunctive relief they

sought which further supports that Plaintiffs attorneys faced a real risk of not prevailing.

B. Plaintiffs would have Faced Substantial Difficulties in Finding Counsel in Utah

Once a real risk of not prevailing has been demonstrated, the party seeking to enhance

the lodestar must also come forward with evidence that, absent an enhancement, the plaintiff

would have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the local or other relevant market.

Homeward Bound, 963 F.2d at 1360(internal quotations and citations omitted). This can be

demonstrated in two ways: 1) producing evidence that the Plaintiff encountered actual difficulty

in procuring counsel; or 2) showing that lawyers in the relevant market generally would not take

such a case on contingency without some guarantee of an enhancement.Id.Here, because this

was a case initiated by the ACLU and not by individual plaintiffs, the relevant proof is that

lawyers in this market (the state of Utah, or nearby states that have similar state bans against

same-sex marriages) generally will not take these types of cases on contingency absent the

opportunity for an enhancement.

The Supreme Court ordered a stay in theKitchen case on January 6, 2014. On January 8,

2014, Governor Herberts chief of staff issued an email to the Governors cabinet members

instructing them to refuse to grant recognition to same-sex couples who were married between

December 20 and January 6. The very next day, January 9, 2014, ACLU attorneys contacted

Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC, about serving as co-counsel to represent the Plaintiffs in this case,

on behalf of all 1,000 plus same-sex couples who had been legally married during this time

period. Strindberg Decl. 6;Mejia Decl. 6-9. There was a significant need for expediency in

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iabc1c67594cd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=963+F.2d+at+1360#co_pp_sp_350_1360


19/60

19

the case as the Plaintiffs, and the other 1,000 plus couples, suffered real harm each day the

Defendants withheld from these couples the constitutionally guaranteed privileges of other

legally married couples. Additionally, the novel and complex issues involved in the case required

a great deal of time. In taking on the case, the small firm of Strindberg & Scholnick literally had

all hands on deck to get the case filed as quickly as possible at the expense of other fee-paying

matters. Strindberg Decl. 7, 17.

Other attorneys in the relevant market support that this case moved on an exceptionally

fast track, demanded a significant and often compressed commitment of time as evidenced by the

many filings prepared in a short amount of time. Tolman Decl. 6;Ferguson Decl. 7, 11.

Additionally, as Ms. Ferguson explains in her declaration, most law firms trying to operate

successfully prefer fee-paying work over contingency arrangements because the compensation is

guaranteed and paid out as the work is done.Ferguson Decl. 15-16. Those attorneys who

actually take complex cases on contingency often seek higher hourly rates than their normal

hourly rates due to the risk and uncertainty of ever actually being compensated, the prolonged

delay in compensation even when fees are awarded and the effort expended in petitioning a court

for fees.Ferguson Decl. 15.

As a small law firm, Strindberg & Scholnick took a huge financial risk when it agreed to

represent the Plaintiffs in this case without charging fees. The law was certainly unsettled at the

time the firm took the case so there was a significant risk that Plaintiffs would not prevail and

their attorneys would not be compensated for their work. Due to these factors and the complexity

of civil rights cases againstpublic entities, there are only a small number of Plaintiffs attorneys

willing to take on this type of litigation. Tolman Decl. 12; Ferguson Decl. 16. Lawyers in

this market generally will not take these cases on contingency without some guarantee of an



20/60

20

enhancement.Ferguson Decl. 17. Awarding fee enhancements in cases such as this one

ensures that meritorious cases will be brought to enforce important constitutional rights, despite

the risks involved. Tolman Decl. 11-13. Absent such an enhancement, the Plaintiffs would

have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the Utah market. The court inParker

acknowledged that most plaintiffs in employment cases are represented by lawyers at small law

firms or solo practitioners and [s]uch lawyers are less likely to be able to absorb the costs of []

litigation without an enhancement in contingency cases.Parker, 264 F. Supp. 2d at 1006-07.

Civil rights cases of this nature are similar to Title VII claims inParkerin that Plaintiffs are

usually represented by small firms or solo practitioners and it is difficult to attract lawyers

willing to accept the higher degrees of risk present in civil rights cases than in other simpler

litigation without the opportunity for enhancement.Id. at 1006.

InParker, the court granted a 20% fee enhancement because Plaintiffs counsel made a

sufficient showing that their case was exceptional and warranted augmentation.Id. at 1007.The

Parkercourt held that in the Utah market an enhancement is necessary to attract lawyers to take

exceptionally protracted, risky, and complex Title VII cases.Id.WhileParkerwas an egregious

Title VII sexual harassment case with successful results, it followed a fairly standard Title VII

track. Further, sexual harassment claims have been well litigated since the enactment of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. Here, Plaintiffs counsel tackled complex issues of first impression on an

expedited, high pressure timeline at the expense of other fee-paying work and which resulted in

an exceptional decision with far reaching impact on the lives of thousands of individuals. And

likeParker, Plaintiffs faced a real risk of not prevailing and the same reality that it is difficult to

find attorneys willing to take on these cases absent an augmentation. Based on the foregoing,

Plaintiffs request a 25% augmentation of the attorneys fees. Not only is such enhancement

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&userEnteredCitation=264+F.+Supp.+2d+at+1006#co_pp_sp_4637_1006https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied865436540a11d997

Same-sex marriage recognition lawsuit attorney's fees motion

Documents

Transcript of Same-sex marriage recognition lawsuit attorney's fees motion