conference center as you've read the briefs in this case probably sounds like there are two different cases going on one about the right to use the property for a community center and for housing for homeless men and the right to rent the property out as a community center for religious worship of the lower you are challenging the district court's modification of the lodestar amount before she applied the seventy percent cut are you know ok everybody's agreed on the lodestar there's no argument about the ra or the particular hours other than ace a large section of the hours that were expended as a judge estimated on trying to collect damages and unfortunately i think the judge conflated many of the civil rights cases where they're seeking only damages and if you don't get all the damages you want you can get c despite the strong presumption that the lone star is not to be reduced that's what the supreme court has said although we have conflicting priorities there is an abuse of discretion standard also so those two of those two standards of review do conflict somewhat but the question is was this case really about damages the katrina issue didn't come up until after the property had been bought after the city had rezoned the property to manufacturing in a hostile rezoning and refused to grant a permit for the one hundred sixty eight units to be used for the housing of these homeless m however a few days after they granted that license the city filed another administrative complaint against world outreach saying you need an especial use permit and a month later they filed a motion saying a special use permit may be very quiet so the battle went on just because they let the hundred sixty eight units be used if we were still seeking equitable relief and if we're seeking equitable relief and obtaining it then the lodestar should not be cut because that's well that's the law in the dock and document two two two dash eight i think that's in two thousand and ten the city wrote after they're allowed to the community center they said but you can't have worship there no worship allowed not even not even renting and in oral arguments in two thousand and fifteen which is quoted in our brief a counsel for the city said you can't have a church we're shipping at this community center not even rental and of course it completely undermines the point of the community center community centers are used for all kinds of activities  clubs and latches seniors as senior activities swimming basketball all of which occur here it's a community center not a church but the city has refused to allow that use and even to this day i think believes that we need a special use permit that was this court in two thousand and fifteen that put to rest all of those things saying you are allowed to continue as non conforming use any of the community center uses that have gone on in the past through the through the y m c a the prayer the prior owner so i was at that point that we became prevailing parties was not in two thousand and seven the steady fight figure asli to say we were not prevailing parties and it was this court that put that matter in twenty fifteen and allowed us to move toward settlement likewise the the district court said this is a case that ought to have settled and we couldn't agree more but the district court did not go into why it should have settled in how you can settle when you have an intransigent tough tenacious opponent like the city of chicago that doesn't  these your future cases over the years and opinions and we've had cases with you we filed this in part in state court because of those prior opinions we thought this is a land use case and there is a lot of land use issues and of course we raise our federal counts and it was the city that removed this case to federal court and then we continued it was the city of chicago that cross appealed after judge lefkow entered summary judgment in about twenty twelve and twenty thirteen was the city of chicago that cross  was the need to keep on fighting and keep on trying to protect this church and the equitable relief that we got gradually got the right to house the man after about two years and then we got the recognition of the legal non conforming use by this court in twenty fifteen and i hope implicitly the right to use it as a community center includes the right to rent it out for worship want to say one more thing it was the city the challenge the constitutionality of lucca in two thousand and fourteen and that also required legal services to defend and uphold the constitutional in a for loop thank you forty thousand dollars to settle the case and then it requested one point nine million dollars in fees the district court awarded four hundred sixty seven thousand dollars in fees which was still twelve times the damages recovery nothing about that awa attorney fees are reviewed under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard because the district court is in the best position to make those determinations and this is especially true in a case like this one of only limited success because the determination necessarily require imprecise determinations of what fees are reasonable in cases like an autonomous and somerfield this court is routinely affirmed the reduction of fees based on this record superior understanding of the litigation and here the just report applied the same analysis as in those prior cases and concluded that world outreaches forty thousand dollars recovery was a dismissal failure of the seven figure damages claims that had driven the litigation for years this court in the district court both also recognized that the largest portion of what outrages alleged damages involve its claim for one point five million dollars it purportedly lost from being unable to house hurricane katrina refugees in fact in a summary judgment decision this court decided that that claim was so central to the case that it needed to address the eviden weaknesses of the claim to provide guidance for that claim on remand for a trial and yet ruled out which does not even address the failure that claimed anywhere and either its opening or its reply brief instead brought out repeatedly claims that the city entitle to or has a right to attorneys fees but is a title only to a reasonable fee and here the district court properly determined that an award of one point five million dollars in fees for forty thousand dollars covering on claims that had been claimed for up to two point four million dollars was searched was just not reasonable doubt which also misrepresents the c's position regarding this claim legal non conforming uses which were average claims prolonged litigation from the time the city issue rolled out for just license period and for them to then require world outreach conference center dish show plans are or do other things to prove what it intended to do didn't make sense that's not how you prove a non conforming use you say i'm going to live in this house even though it's own manufacturing because it's illegal non conforming use you have to show it's always been used for residence but you don't apply for a permit to continue living in the house if you open a shoe store there you lose or not confirming use status but we said we're going to use it as a community center if we weren't using it the city would have been right on our back they had five inspections they had the task force out there they were harassing harassing us and so we think that that was not necessary to prove that this court has so ruled thank