disability he encountered a different situation that able bodied patrons encountered at the same facility were here on a as the result of an order on a fees motion  at the end of the matter and the just fight mr trujillo having extraordinary success in making the restaurant accessible the district court order instead focused on the the proportionality of the award the damages award to the fees requested and we urge the court to to find the error there after all he did have great success in this case he started off with seven barriers that he encountered and then wound up eventually removing twenty seven other barriers that were discovered by his awarded the district point of just injunctive relief and realizing that attorneys wouldn't take these sort of cases where there is no monetary recovery to take a percentage of what the what the statutory scheme allows for is there a cover recovery of attorney's fees in this case the court wound up discounting about half the fees and during its analysis mentioned that it had a lot to do or we believe that the  that the court's decision probably started with a decision that the year that because the damages were so low so should the fees and in doing so the court look at the efforts on trying to settle this case early and in this case settled early it did but the problem with the court's order is they i didn't see all of the invisible work if you will that went on in order to achieve the result that the plaintiff received and we one of the other problems is this kind of leads to one of the other problems is that in our face motion we took great pains to point out all of those that invisible work you know and the court did make some specific reductions in the award but then made a blanket discount based on a few pointed examples the court made and van disallowed any fees whatsoever for the mediation statement which we were required to prepare and late allowed to vary the the requirements of the a v r rules and in this case we were going to prepare our file that brief as close to the mediation as possible to hopefully not add their i mean it's difficult to follow up the district court judge for taking off the hours preparing a late rally we would disagree that it was late and if the court would like us to we can but it had not so isn't that many not if not if the mediator said i don't need to see your get the mediator say that that's what i believe happened your honor i honestly wasn't at i wasn't involved in that exchange but that's my understand is there anything in the record gives me reflecting that the mediator said it didn't need this that he or she didn't need to see the report no and again that was because that issue didn't come up  prepared you know it was to encourage the parties rather than spending a bunch of time on the brief to try to settle but as we got the case subtle literally the day before mediation that's when we finally had to get the mediation brief together and now the mediation brief is just one of the three items that really take issue with here there was also the issue of the court cut a lot of time off of the preparation of the fees motion itself that breaking this point is i do my calculation they preparation of the fisa application was about forty percent of the claim fees you saw between lawyers in to be able to reduce that as he did with a few other examples you find that he reduced the inspection activity by one hour that he uses discretion in that regard i'm sorry on the what which activity the activity with regard to the inspection oh no we did take issue with that your honor and median confirm he reduced it by a half hour right yet we didn't have a problem and then there was those ever present point six minutes for everything every activity look were the lowest ranking timekeepers for the most part so i don't think i don't think that's what i'm saying he wasn't saying you shouldn't use those i think just the opposite would say you need to use the lowest filler but it was the number that seemed like a lot of people were picking up and putting down the fire and be duplicative efforts and what the court found is they they did find a few duplicative efforts which were not quarreling with but the fact that there were so many people working on the case the court suggested why not have just one attorney do the do the fees motion and maybe not even have any one else help if it had been myself the highest timekeeper it probably would have wound up being more expensive than what we finally came up with proportionality however i think that's a little bit misplace because if you listen to everything that was said today in the questions that you directed at opposing counsel as well the true focus of this case has to be on lodestar and it district courts included fees and whatnot i can't remember exactly four million four thousand yes but what the district court didn't take account of was the remedial relief that was obtained and under a case law that is that needs to be accounted for well your honor i think it did take account of that pounding that well it seems to be focused you seem to be focused primarily on the amount of recovery it seemed to be twenty eight dollars lines about the amount of recovery on earth and the court where did he discuss the other relief that was obtained he mentioned it in the introduction as well as the fact that there are a prevailing party he said there's no doubt there are prevailing party and usually when you look at can there be a reduction because of the fact that this is only based on nonmonetary it's looking at whether it's a prevailing party or not and the cases that i've looked at mostly look at the fact that ok a court said you can't have anything because it's you don't recover any monetary recovery so in this case the court focus it's a factual determination if you look at what is prescribe for courts to do when it comes to attorneys fees once and attorneys fees motion is filed this court step by step went through it st it determined that there was a prevailing party nd it gave them the reasonable hourly rates and then we get to the rd step which is looking at reasonable time spent on the case which is a factual determination and that's where we get stuck but the cases also say in particularly henslee it says that a court has to look at what the parties do and it has to assure that building judgment is used and that's where the court was focused and i would say that he is in your view they district court even though he didn't he seemed to put more emphasis on the amount to the monetary relief but that your view is that he did consider the equitable relief that was obtained that's correct your honor and that even considering the equitable relief the corrections that needed to be made the amount of time expended was too much that's correct your honor and i believe that courts are empowered if not charged with a duty to make sure that litigants use filling judgment and they are empowered with the right to reduce things that are excessive redundant and improper and i believe this court did just that and it wrote fourteen page order detailing with charts and line by line exactly what it felt and apparently that's not enough for plaintiffs plaintiff wants this case to be a little different and wants to eradicate the ability to make a factual determination of what reasonable fees are and i will tell you i'm a female latina and as a female latina i consider the importance of civil rights and i understand that you're charged with the duty of protecting that but by the same token we cannot be guilty of the same evil we're trying to protect we can't do on an equal application of the law and so your honor i ask that this case be held to the same application of the law you have injustice and in the words of martin luther king what were the words the only equal justice i mean i don't understand this or not this case is about is there they object to the way in which the district because our case law does say only take a look at the monetary recovery you also need to take into account the other relief the taint one could look at the district court judge's order and say  focus was on the monetary relief if you look at the amount of relief dollars that they recovered and you look at the amount of fees that they were demanding requesting the difference is pretty substantial and it's just not right an explanation in the broader context and it may be here that the district court adequately explained overall why he thought a reduction was a program so that's all that needs to be said thank your honor i have nothing else thank you well it would be so fees motions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard but if there is but the court does do with an overview of the law and we think the  to believe so if you're sincere believe that if this went back to the judge when he said knowledge the fact that there were thirty three improvements to the property that can be changed given his detailed analysis that's what we hope your honor