thank you made please the court my hope is starve your limited issues and stand on the briefs regarding the other issues unless your honour's for for something different that's not the same my plea is that this court will be open to the possibility of taking the next step of reversing may i reserve two minutes for rebuttal and you keep track of your own time ok thank you regarding travel we ask only what the law allows with the seven circuit allow based upon this court's methodology and henery plaintiff's undisputed affidavit states that plane of charge is paying clients to travel downtown to court therefore plaintive is entitle to be compensated for this travel plan of goes downtown to the courthouse maybe one every one dollar and one dollar and a half months or two months or every three months therefore indisputably plaintive does not commute the district court's methodology of ignoring this undisputed affidavit and the dictionary definition of commute was respectfully erroneous or the district court abused its discretion therefore plaintive requests that this court consider reinstating the one hundred and nine hours that the district court removed as part of its sixty five percent slash regarding the hourly rate the supreme court and indeed this court has repeatedly instructed just your courts that they must utilize the current market when considering fee compensation factors not what the district courts think or feel the market should be discordian g d s for certain that district courts cannot make declarations upon the market rather the market is determined by  rd party attorney affidavits therefore turning to the market plaintiffs presented eight undisputed rd party attorney market affidavits the undisputed market evidence is that similar attorneys in skill reputation and experience does point to have an hourly rate of over six hundred dollars nevertheless plane of utilized a lower rate of five hundred and fifty dollars plane of has been charging paying clients five hundred and fifty dollars at least since two thousand and nineteen over chain years ago plaintiff received three hundred and ninety five dollars per hour from judge taylor there after illinois justice taylor who held in the order that three one hundred and ninety five dollars for our was low for an attorney such as plaintiffs the district court's three hundred and sixty dollar hour is a decrease from ten years ago attorneys of thirty four dollars or five years in practice received three one hundred and sixty dollars an hour not attorneys of over thirty seven years putting aside a title seven chaps plaintive a quieter recovery from mr nichols of about three million five hundred thousand dollars plaintiff has had other sizable verdicts over the years some may surmise that attorneys of thirty four dollars or five years in practice receiving three hundred and sixty dollars for our may not have these sizable verdicts the only evidence before the district court was the plaintiff's undisputed eight attorney mark it affidavits therefore the correct methodology and for rec exercise of discretion was to rely heavily on them however the respectfully tried to find ways to disregard the eight undisputed market affidavits in so doing respect fully the district court utilized the wrong methodology and abused its discretion the district court relied heavily on on reasonable considerations that is passed fetus titian's on reasonable because defendants presented no attorney market affidavits that the past fetus cision swear the current market the district court utilized thousand and fourteen dollars respectfully the district court did not want the summerfield three hundred dollars rate involved to work dollars beginning in two thousand and six even if truth that even if three hundred dollars could be utilized heavily as the district  did defendants presented no rd party attorney market evidence that a sixty dollars increase from two thousand and six reflects the current market or the market in each individual year twenty million one hundred and twenty two thousand and thirteen et since two thousand and six this sixty dollars increase is four dollars sixty two cents per year or since twenty thousand one hundred and twenty eight dollars fifty cents per year respectfully this doesn't entice but rather recalls attorneys from these cases particularly attorneys of thirty seven years or even attorneys of ten or fifteen years in practice of her sister it's a precipitous drop of attorneys willing to accept these cases already exists plaintive respectfully submit to your honor's that we don't need to worsen this when this court has allowed just records to utilize past fee to stations it was because the plaintive in those cases utilize them to support their hourly rate plaintiff in this case before your honor's did not because they are not the current market if past fee decisions became the benchmark it's with judges arbitrarily deciding an inflationary rate such as four dollars sixty two cents per year then this would  affirm the attorney fionn warn of nearly eight hundred thousand dollars in this case because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ascertaining the lodestar or and declining an accord in just minutes not a mouse st the district court properly calculated the lodestar by determining the reasonable hourly rates and the number of hours reasonably expanded with respect to the rate the district court properly looks to recent a feat awards to council in this case to determine the appropriate market rate this court and speed and how that feel warrants handed down within the last two years are quote clearly probative of the market raise in line with authority the district court looked to the recent district court decision smith versus rose bud and which council in this case was awarded an hourly rate of three hundred and sixty dollars the court adopted that rate for this case given that in smith versus rose the case was litigated for the exact period of time at this case was litigated from two thousand and twelve to two thousand and eighteen that case was also in line with another recent case of summerfield vs city of chicago which was affirmed by this case or excuse me this court in two thousand and seventeen which affirmed an award of three hundred dollars an hour thus it was not of use of discretion for the district court to adopt a few more in line with that recent authority in addition with respect to the affidavits the district court did not abuse its discretion in affording little weight to those affidavits the affidavits either failed to include the attorneys particular raids or to not established at the rate was utilized in similar cases even if those affidavits had been sufficient however the district court had an independent basis for assigning little weight to those affidavits which was that if there had not been a demonstration that counsel in this case had the skill reputation and experience as those attorneys submitting corporations and the court looked to its own experience with counsel in this case as well as many other district court cases with respect to the skill reputation experience of counsel next the court properly arrived at the reasonable number of hours expended it properly applied a twenty percent reduction for hours that were excessive redundant and unnecessary the court listed several examples of excessive billing including applying  excuse me billing two hundred and eighty four hours for a summary judgment response billing one hour for each hearing attended or those that's not comport with the just reports records of the length of hearings some of which lasted  minutes in addition the court noted the magistrate judges an indication of several frivolous motions that had been filed all of this went into the judge's meticulous  alice's finding that there had been an excessive and redundant amount of a billing entries in this case it was also appropriate for the cow the court to apply a ten percent reduction for clerical work as well as to reduce the paralegal work to attorney rates or excuse me not apply in attorney right to paralegal work in addition to deducting clerical and paralegal work it was appropriate for the court to deduct time for commuting in this case there were two eight hour round trips three hundred and ninety two eight hour round trips billed in this case the court found in his discretion it was appropriate to deduct that time it looked to this court's decision and henry as to whether those hours were both necessary and ones for which a team client would pay for with respect to the necessary indication arses excuse me analysis the court noted that it not only affords the option of attorneys to appear by phone and in fact encourages attorneys to appear by phone certainly some of these appearances were necessary but the question still remains whether those hours would have been compensated by an individual plaintiffs in this case the court was not convinced and it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to determine the best showing and not the need indeed only look to the affidavit that my opponent addresses in this case with respect to the whether a client would pay for those hours though that affidavit does not establish that a client would in fact pay for two point eight hour round trips to and from the court house the merely established that clients will pay for travel not this travel but will pay for travel at the answering rate in addition the court did not abuse discretion in apply only in extraordinary circumstances will occur in just a minute why this case according to the court although it was a difficult set of facts and counsel achieved a significant victory did not rise to an extraordinary circumstance permitting our military wing for an upward adjustment finally with respect for fees for fees this again is a discretionary determination the court found that the council had not exercised good billing judgments and that the again nearly eight hundred thousand dollar award in this case properly compensated for the work performed in this case and if the court has no so even if we could rely on so called recent feel words that's not to say we should reject evidence of the current market if those feel words were current market the defendants would have put in attorney affidavits with this court has repeatedly held relies upon they didn't so there's undisputed affidavits of the market rate smith versus rose is a district court decision relied on summer feels three hundred dollars a day with beginning work hours from two thousand and six there's no discussion smith versus rosen but more important the case of your honor the district court in this case mentioned that there was a ten percent deduction a twenty percent reduction that's a double dip that's a double reduction st the district court eliminated hours then adair deducted the remaining hours by ten percent and then on top of that twenty percent as far as one  hearings i arrive a half hour early every hearing and then there's discussion with defendants afterwards so that's where they want our comes and if i may say and i realize that you know the plane big risk by accepting this case and could have lost that includes over three thousand hours of unpaid work and thousands of dollars of law firm resources the district court slashed fees by sixty five percent even though plaintive won every condit the complaint and effectively obtain a recovery of three million five hundred thousand dollars this sixty five percent slash sent chills to the plaintiff's bar as stated in the beginning and