IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

SECOND DIVISION


M. KENDALL WRIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS

VS. CASE NO. 60CV-13-2662

STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS


MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiffs, as prevailing parties in the captioned case, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1988, Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and (e), and A.C.A. § 16-123-105(b),

move this Court for an award of fees and costs. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff’s

state:

1. Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Pro. 54(e)(2), the Judgment for which attorney’s
fees and costs are sought is the Court’s May 15, 2014 Final Order and Rule 54(b)
Certification, which incorporated by reference the Court’s Judgment entered on May 9,
2014.
2. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (Page 33, paragraph 8) requested an
award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of suit in the event that Plaintiffs
prevailed in this litigation.
3. Plaintiffs’ attorney Cheryl K. Maples’ is an Arkansas Attorney licensed to
practice for 27 years. Her standard hourly rate (lodestar) is $250 an hour. Pursuant to
A.R.C.P. 54, her current “fair estimate” of the amount sought in attorney’s fees is
$256,060.00 based on her hourly rate times 1024.24 hours devoted to this cause.
Cheryl Maples was primarily responsible for the time-intensive tasks related to client
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2014-May-29 08:35:35
60CV-13-2662
C06D02 : 6 Pages
contact, developing the plaintiffs that would pursue the lawsuit, and preparing the initial
Complaint, Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint and initial Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. Cheryl Maples requests an enhancement of the hourly rate
and/or fee award based on the “exceptional success” with respect to the litigation and
the fact that she is “an experienced attorney who demonstrated superior legal and
advocacy skills in this case.” See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983);
Nassar v. Jackson, 2013 WL 1290223 (E.D. Ark. 2013); Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304
Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990).
4. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jack Wagoner is an Arkansas Attorney licensed to
practice for 25 years. His standard hourly rate (lodestar) is $295 an hour. Wagoner Law
Firm, P.A., after entering its appearance in the case, focused primarily on research,
writing, drafting of pleadings, and preparing for the two major hearings held in the case.
Pursuant to A.R.C.P. 54, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A.’s current “fair estimate” of the
amount sought in attorney’s fees is $98,545. For Jack Wagoner, this is $59,450 based
on his hourly rate times 201.5 hours devoted to this cause. Associate attorneys Angela
Mann, Keith Pike and Sarah Cowan devoted an additional 223.4 hours of time to this
cause and their standard hourly rates are $175 an hour for total associate time charges
of $39,095. Jack Wagoner and Wagoner Law Firm, P.A. also requests an enhancement
of the hourly rate and/or fee award based on the “exceptional success” with respect to
the litigation and the fact that Jack Wagoner is “an experienced attorney who
demonstrated superior legal and advocacy skills in this case.” See cases cited in
paragraph three (3) above.
5. The reasons that an substantial fee aware are justified in this case under
the factors noted in the cases cited in paragraph three (3) above include:
a. The lead attorneys in this case have over 25 years’ experience
practicing in the Arkansas courts. They are experienced and able.
b. The case required substantial devotion of attorney and staff hours
from the two small law firms involved. This precluded the lawyers from working
on other cases where they could have been compensated at their standard
hourly rates. The time spent on the lawsuit by the two firms literally cost those
two firms the amount of billable hours estimated above.
c. The case was undertaken by both law firms with the attorneys
knowing that there was no hope of compensation for their services unless they
won the case. Even then, there was and is no assurance that they would receive
compensation for the time devoted to the case. Attorneys that perform work
where payment is contingent on the outcome of the litigation generally expect to
receive an enhanced hourly rate or multiplier of time to compensate for the risk
involved.
d. The issues in the case were novel and difficult. The case was the
first and only case of its kind filed in any court in the State of Arkansas.
e. The results obtained in the case could only be characterized as an
“exceptional success.” Plaintiffs were granted 100% of the relief requested in
their Third Amended Complaint and the Court found in their favor on all counts
without exception.
f. The fees sought, even with a multiplier as allowed by the United
State’s Supreme Court’s decision in the Hensley, supra, or with an enhanced
hourly rate like the $375 an hour rate allowed by Judge Susan Wright in the
Nassar case, supra, are reasonable and in line with what other attorneys
customarily would receive in litigation where payment is contingent on the
outcome of the case and not certain even then. The hourly time charges set forth
above, with an enhanced hourly rate or multiplier of 1.5 to 2 times the actual
charges, would be reasonable based on the criteria set forth by the Arkansas
Supreme Court in the case most often cited for the standard courts should follow
in awarding attorneys’ fees in Arkansas’s courts, Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304
Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990).
g. Given the time demands and complexity of the legal issues
involved in the case, it’s monumental nature, and its impact on the lives of many
thousands of Arkansans and their constitutional rights, a substantial fee award is
justified. The fact that the two law firms are small made it apparent to the clients
that acceptance of the case would preclude other employment by the two law
firms. A lawyer, particularly with a small firm, cannot be in two places at once.
6. Attorney Cheryl Maples also requests reimbursement for the following
costs related to the litigation:
a. Court costs of $185.00
b. Costs of Service of Process of $550.00
c. Travel $1667.60 (mileage $1433.60 at .56 per mile, lodging of $234.00)
d. 3365 pages of copies at the rate of .25 per page for total copy expense of
$841.25
7. Attorney Jack Wagoner also requests reimbursement for the following
costs related to the litigation:
e. 4373 pages of copies at the rate of .25 per page for total copy expense of
$1159.25;
f. Court reporter transcript charge of $765;
g. Westlaw computer research charges of $1627.01.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this motion be granted
and for all other relief to which they may be entitled.
.
Dated: May 29, 2014

Respectfullysubmitted,

/s/CherylK.Maples________ /s/JackWagner,III___________
CherylK.MaplesABA#87109 .WagonerLawFirm,PA
P.O.Box1504 1320Brookwood,SuitesD&E
Searcy,AR72145 LittleRock,AR72202
(501)912-3890 (501)663-5225
Fax(501)362-2128 Fax(501)660-4030
Email:ckmaples@aol.com Email:jack@wagonerlawfirm.com

CertificateofService
I,theundersignedattorneydoherebystatethatonthis29thdayofMay,2014a
trueandcorrectcopyoftheforegoingdocumentwasservedbyemailonlyupon:
ColinR.Jorgensen,#2004078
AssistantAttorneyGeneral
323CenterStreet,Suite200
LittleRock,AR72201
Phone:(501)682-3997
Fax:(501)682-2591
Email:colin.jorgensen@arkansasag.gov

AttorneyforStateDefendants
DavidMackFuqua,#80048
FuquaCampbell,P.A.
425WestCapitol,Suite400
LittleRock,AR72201
Phone:(501)374-0200
Email:dfuqua@fc-lawyers.com
AttorneyforSeparateDefendants,DougCurtis,inhisofficialcapacityasSalineCounty
ClerkandLarryCrane,inhisofficialcapacityasPulaskiCounty/CircuitClerk
MichaelR.Rainwater,#79234
JasonE.Owens,#2003003
Rainwater,Holt&Sexton,P.A.
P.O.Box17250
6315RanchDr.
LittleRock,AR72222-7250
Phone:(501)868-2500
Fax:(501)868-2505
Email:owens@rainfirm.com
AttorneysforSeparateDefendantsCherylEvans,inherofficialcapacityasWhite
CountyClerk,William“Larry”Clarke,inhisofficialcapacityasLonokeCountyClerk,
DebbieHartman,inherofficialcapacityasConwayCountyClerk,andBeckyLewallen,
inherofficialcapacityasWashingtonCountyClerk.

/s/CherylK.Maples___________

EQCF_126

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful