Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Heller Memo

Heller Memo

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 112|Likes:
Published by antitrusthall
Heller v. District of Columbia. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. (Aug. 25, 2008)
Heller v. District of Columbia. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. (Aug. 25, 2008)

More info:

Published by: antitrusthall on Oct 03, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADICK ANTHONY HELLER, et al.,)Case No. 03-CV-0213-EGS)Plaintiffs,)
MEMORANDUM OF
)
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
v.)
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
)
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,)
FEES AND COSTS
)Defendants.) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTSCOME NOW
Plaintiff Dick Anthony Heller and his undersigned counsel, and submittheir Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.Dated:August 25, 2008Respectfully submitted,Alan Gura (D.C. Bar No. 453449)Gura & Possessky, PLLCRobert A. Levy (D.C. Bar No. 447137)Clark M. Neily, III (D.C. Bar No. 475926)101 N. Columbus Street, Suite 405Alexandria, VA 22314Phone: 703.835.9085Fax:703.997.7665By:___/s/Alan Gura__________________Alan GuraAttorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 1:03-cv-00213-EGS Document 42 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 38
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................iiINTRODUCTION..............................................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................2SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................................................4ARGUMENT..................................................................6I.PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVETHEIR FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1988...............................6II.THE TIME SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL WAS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS IN THE LITIGATION...................7III.THE HOURLY RATES PROFFERED BY PLAINTIFFS ARECONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED RATES FOR SIMILAR WORK IN THE WASHINGTON, DC MARKET FOR LEGAL SERVICES.........10A.The AttorneysBilling Practices......................................10B.The Attorneys’ Skill, Experience, and Reputation........................12C.The Prevailing Market Rates in the Community..........................15IV.COUNSEL ARE ENTITLED TO ENHANCEMENT OFTHEIR FEE FOR PROVIDING HIGH QUALITYREPRESENTATION IN A CASE OF EXCEPTIONAL SUCCESS................24V.COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO HIS REASONABLEEXPENSES IN ADVANCING THIS LITIGATION............................31CONCLUSION...............................................................32
Case 1:03-cv-00213-EGS Document 42 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 2 of 38
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C).......................................................2542 U.S.C. § 1988 ..........................................................passimCOURT RULESSup. Ct. R. 43.3...............................................................31CASES
 Am. Lands Alliance
v.
 Norton
, 525 F. Supp.2d 135 (D.D.C. 2007).......................21
 Barnes
v.
City of Cincinnati
, 401 F.3d 729 (6 Cir. 2005)..............................
th
30
 Bd. of Trs. of the
 
 Hotel & Rest. Emples. Local 25
v.
 JPR, Inc.
,136 F.3d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1998)..............................................11
 Bebchick 
v.
Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n
,805 F.2d 396 (D.C. Cir. 1986)..............................................28
 Blanchard 
v.
 Bergeron
, 489 U.S. 87 (1989) ..........................................6
 Blum
v.
Stenson
, 465 U.S. 886 (1984)...................................7, 10, 19, 24, 26
 Brotherton
v.
Cleveland 
, 141 F. Supp.2d 907 (S.D. Ohio 2001)..........................30
Castellon
v.
United States
, 864 A.2d 141 (D.C. 2004).................................25
City of Burlington
v.
 Dague
, 505 U.S. 557 (1992)....................................26
Copeland 
v.
 Marshall 
, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980)..................................6
Covington
v.
 District of Columbia
, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995)...........10, 11, 15, 19, 21
Gomez 
v.
Gates
, 804 F. Supp. 69 (C.D. Cal. 1992)....................................30
Goos
v.
 National Ass’n of Realtors
, 997 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1993)......................12 
Case 1:03-cv-00213-EGS Document 42 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 3 of 38

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->