we have so judge cook retired without taking senior status and judge cook and a lot of familiarity with this case the other two did not and in fact judge tarnal did not even grant oral argument in regard to my objections to the reporting recommendation i never appeared in front of judge karnow i do not know what my clients and i did to justify the vitriol in judge tara knows opinion but that's neither here nor there we have cited extensively the case law in this circuit concerning the fact that when any prevailing party receives excellent bored to me and my client's a published decision that was a case that when the matter came to this court after eight years of litigation we are now in this case the year thirteen and counting  eight years this court was faced with an attorney fees request of five hundred thirty six thousand dollars at that time in the court granted a full compensation in them matter and this is what this court said in this case is on page four twenty three when the metropolitan government of national in davidson county was making the argument that well i had and i had prevailed on every single solitary issue  metro's presented no basis for any such finding here prevailing parties who obtain excellent results heitman as deja vu surely did here and repeatedly so are generally entitled to a fully compensatory  handle these actions well your honor first of all we have a matter that went over a number of years we have the fact that even in regard to that billing i read a active billion from attorneys talking to one another that this court of law or case has said is in fact fully compensable you talk about what we did what we did with regard to judge cook in the first motion for summary judgment he didn't he still didn't give the relief that we wanted we had to repair to this court and i had to get a three zero decision from this court to order him to grant the relief he then didn't even grant the appropriate relief i had to fight a motion for reconsideration then he finally granted the relief of that we then had to go that and it's certainly that kind of back and forth would drive up the cities but for example one particular climb that i don't know i don't remember how i came to realize the s but fast hundred hours for the partial summary judgment motion that was filed i think kind of early on in the hundred page plus  just it just looks like everything was kind of over the warrior your honor i have to deal with the case law of this circuit ok and so if you take a look at the for example the sensations versus city of grand rapids case which is a decision where this court says once a litigant like me puts to an ordinance into the record as part of the complaint that deals with secondary effects that because we cannot get discovery and the secondary effects issue because of a ruling of this court in my deja vu nashville case that can be twelve b sixty out right there that that litigant doesn't even get an opportunity to litigate the case in regard to the length of the complaint not only did i have to deal with that as we also pointed out in our briefing your honor this was a verified complaint these were verified complaints we had we had a number of different complaints here at least four that i couldn't think of because things were added as things developed we didn't want to bring in the conyers unriddle result of we had to get relief from the court and it was it was pretty clear if you take a look at the record that even given what you say we did in the hours that we the we did and i don't i do not remember any five hundred hours on a motion what i recall is they put a chart together that said something like two hundred eighty two hours on one task and then if you read all of the entries in there you'll see that most of those entries have nothing to do with that matter that's the one that i recall but we did what we had to do to win for our clients and we had to come here we had i  built and building blocks i could not go to step three in regard to the procedures that the city council the illegal procedures that the city council enacted to try to stop the transfer i had to first go to the matter and your honor when you talk about whether this was an easy case and why we should but you know why we had to put in the hours the city of detroit's defense to our first motion was very simple the seminal united states supreme court decision  adult zoning in what is the city detroit's zoning ordinance which i was attacking they pointed that out to judge cook time after time the united states supreme court has upheld the city detroit zoning ordinance but i got  honor judge cook is a judge was a judge that handle his manners the same every hearing we had up until the day before trial was in front of judge cook but judge whalen did the r and r right he analyses as to why that is we pointed out his comment that these are not important constitutional rights which under the begin to be decision of this court is not an appropriate basis he pointed out that my clients were wealthy businesspeople without having any evidence in front of him which the opinion judge gibbons you wrote in the levin case is not an appropriate basis and in fact in levin this court ordered that upon remainder to be resigned to another judge because of those comments so he came up with the same number but you know not well and his rest now is the same pretty much is the key thing that seems to me to be of concern is the reduction by sixty percent fees and both the magistrate judge and the district judge are doing that correct correct and your argument is there should be no reduction but if there if there were to be a reduction what kind of what is the problem with this and then the reduction is other than sixty percent other than the size well your honor that's the third reduction ok the first reduction news already cut the fees by ten percent then judge made the magistrate takes out the first iteration of the case he takes out the full sixteen thousand two hundred dollars with regard to the kind years unriddle matter if you go to the chart concerning that that's what they asked that's the reduction that they asked for sixteen thousand two hundred dollars that's what he reduced it by then he uses the the zoning matter to to reduce it basically sixty percent and if it's that the zoning matter that reduces at sixty percent as i thought it would that's what he uses  a partial basis for that yes he does and your honor let's take a look at this correct me again because i was they were having a communications issue here i thought that the magistrate judge took out certain things like the conyers riddle matter and the zoning matter and the pre a certain date matter which for some reason i'm thinking is like your honor and then comes up with a number and then reduces it by sixty percent am i correct what it is correct but what i'm telling you is i believe if you go back and look at the reported recommendation he uses the zoning matter to partially justify the sixty percent reduction now not a good reason you're saying to justify the sixty percent reduction because it's already been taken into account well i don't think there should be reduction for the zoning to begin with and i'll point out to the court its own language in the prior  decision in this matter why there was the connection between the zoning matter and our damage claim but no i don't believe that's justified i've cited four cases to your honor's as to one this court reversed every time a sixty percent reduction and your honor if you take a look at that you know the attorney for your ward again in deja vu nashville at that point was five hundred thirty thousand dollars we didn't get a penny of damages not a penny of damages i enjoin permanently the detroit zoning ordinance in this case the sign ordinance is applied to my clients the practices and procedures of the detroit city council so let's just describe fifty percent of the attorney fees to the declaratory injunctive action and fifty percent of the three million dollars i get to my clients if you want to figure it that way just down and dirty let's figure it that way that means my attorney feel bored and getting three million dollars from my clients is six point three percent why is that a reasonable compensation for a damage claim that they pushed me to tell the night of trial the the night before trial that's when we settled the case it was the night before trial everything we had to do they took a complete scorched earth approach to this i pointed out in the record they said yeah they were going to stipulate to the third motion for some rigid never that there are multiple references in this record even in the same little criminal trial were jim st john testifies from day in my representations as an officer of the court from day one we went in in front of judge  cook and the city council members and said we just want to settle this we do not want to litigate with you totally turned us down totally turned us down made us do all of this work and your honor you know there's one question that's never been asked in this case of me mr schaefer did you take this on a contingency fee i did it i was an hour early on this case either i was under retainer agreement with my client that you know i was my shirt because of the hours that i had to expend on this so this whole concept of you know i was making the lawyers rich this is primarily my clients money because of money that they've already paid me and i would point out to this court that in two thousand and fourteen this court came out with the decision in the ohio rights to life case and said the attorney for your belongs to the client not to the lawyers their script discretion in these matters the key is no matter how violent the plaintiff or the prevailing party is is whether or not the fees are reasonable and were reasonable expended and just because you have a great result i think the overall principle view look over all these cases otherwise we win and allies them have a reduction is work was was the work that was done reasonably expended just because you incur something does not mean it was reasonable reason some portion i don't know how you would determine what the some portion of that in this case were incurred due to failure to well they do to you they said on the application that i expect i can't i can't go back and recite to you that actually exactly the points in time but there were years where the city search did find us in violations may i am speaking my own the there is evidence in the record that the council did that correct so they were found we were found and we want to resolve as we would heal liable i think is because one of things was is that there was some in action on the application yes that was that was found and i had to seek relief in order to get the action correct yes you're on well look these there are some extent driven by the conduct of the party being sued as well as the conduct of the parties who are suing i think you agree to that i think of both parts as i say started off with very easily fall i think both parts were very zealous and took a hard stance on their positions yes they did it i don't deny that w the case in the situation entirely and as i said before it doesn't mean just because they were incurred they're tied to compensation what the what the basis is there for the district judge and the magistrate judge reduced in the fees by sixty percent you are think g you look at the tire context of this case i think because of the assessment hours in this case not you know even the excessive hours in this particular case that they determine as looking from it and whether or not you would have ruled that a same percentage disks are so forth your honor does not mean that they abused their discretion in this case i think they also look for the things that they asked for that they were not given a rifle a so that they do we're not even given any fees for the fact that us this for the court to grant fees for the representation of criminal proceedings proceedings and grand jury proceedings  is something that the court rightly did then denied then that shouldn't weigh into the reduction by sixty percent and i don't think it did i think that was a separate jested not a war in anything in there so the one thing that you've mentioned justifies the sixty percent reduction the only thing you've mentioned so far is the excessive hours the excess of ours and the block building we raise the bottom billing issue as this fact that some of the things that we did something when we looked in and we did a review of what the plaintiffs amid it the you could not you could not necessarily determine whether or not and make a reasonable decision of whether or not these hours were reasonably expended now as no evidence that the that the court paid any attention to the chart we made the chart and the playing to the defense counsel may mention that it was just trying to get a grab ahold of all these extensive hours to make some rational reasonable says out of it but there's nothing in the record to say that the court relied on that chart and so it wasn't a good example of double billing they were taking what they saw and trying to analyze and it was difficult to do so so it's nothing about the sefton deceptive measure so for explain the sixty percent i think the court room looked at the record independently this always doesn't show that he did anything in permissible or relied on anything in permissible to reach a result i cited to you in my brief where there's been kentucky case it was a first i'm in the case fifty percent why excessive building block billing in that particular case that was justified fifty percent is not sixty percent but what i'm saying is i'm trying to show you that it wasn't so farfetched and that was the many first amendment case there were other cases they said that you can take into effect think what the court being who had to look at this record and why judge is not just not the defense fault that judge cook was in that did not make the decision judge way when he was appointed i think he had a year to go over these records and to go over the records and so forth have a gap year is forgetting so he had these a year to review this case and go over the record and so in this particular case fifty percent reduction for excessive billing and and poor documentation but not billing and so forth i cited to you for it perhaps i'm overlooking it but i don't do any reference in the poor of the district court's order with the sixty percent to reference to block billing you know that's what i'm saying that was our that was and i'm seeing that's another i think the original question w independent and now is there that it looked at the excessive number of hours and excited in cases where they felt here i think and then and there just for the sixty percent you're you're not talking about what cases it determined that they should even grant recovery here and the court felt that the it disappointed that it felt that they could make a across the board reduction it didn't have to be line by line and so forth is here and they time out the analyze it on the big case on the hours and so forth reciting the different hours which are which and which i don't even recall i'm not going to try to point to this so i think that he and the number of  did in this particular matter here and as far as the busy day we argued that they should not get any hours for the b z claim because based under the supreme court case of a way out what they affirm that a procedure that was not necessary and a proceeding that it was not a prerequisite for this suit and in fact our position is that the issues that they raise in this and this suit were in many ways separate and distinct from what they did in the b z eight that that wasn't and that therefore shouldn't be but the judged judge whalen felt that they should get credit for those hour so he did not indeed he did not he gave them when he  was a part of the sixty percent action whether when we ask that it should be no hours for that judge wayland rejected agam it going we went back case by by motion by motion line by line trying to get certain doug options another hour and he just took the approach of the cross the board to address the whole issue of excessiveness in this particular and this particular case and yes the court's quote the court is not required to engage in a line by line analysis yes of playing of counsel's one hundred thirteen pages of the requests if that's true or not because frankly i don't know how the court determines the reasonableness of a free without quote unquote going by and checking what's reasonable and what's not but in any event that's your job if you're opposing please i would expect the defendant in these cases to do exactly what the court says it's not going to do and so i guess i'm moving back around what in the court's order beyond the sort of conclusory statement justifies for percent we don't know we went course not no we asked for we asked for this shouldn't be granted this how we did it ok he asked for three hundred fifty and a lot of those i mean pardon you you're prepared to go in on a lot of your requests but now we're talking about the sixty percent at the end of the day that come from i guess in the reasonableness discretion of the judge in this particular case which we are mandated to did you ask for any percentage reduction like fifty percent or twenty five percent or eighty percent my review of the record is no we didn't we might have asked it was on one matter for a ten percent or something but that was and i can't remember what it was but no we never put forth sixty percent no we didn't argue general percentage reduction no we didn't we went by hour by hour to argue was taken care of so to speak or address or granted that the setting aside of the items that the district court ruled were not in that were not properly would be best far is the argument in the district court you pretty much fully prevailed on them right yes ok but you didn't want to put the full million dollars plus to be awarded you you were you were critiquing line by line various additional items and instead of granting you the relief that you were requesting the magistrate judge and the district judge said well we'll just take the total and reduce it by sixty percent with the judge made that ruling we went by as i said by five we attacked various motions hours and we are you generally excessiveness we would take some say look at excess of four hundred hours for one motion for summary judgment that it claimed that it used in the two thousand and three or we may arguments in terms of things like that that's how we we for the most part argue green but we do agree that in terms of just like the corps didn't grant our we quested b z a get they didn't get any hours for the busy day but he gave them at least forty percent of whatever is ours were the court indeed agree with us and we rightfully so regarding the idea of the do two thousand and three the two thousand and three lawsuit which they stipulate it that there would be no attorney fees that was a right for and i think that the papers and in the transcript of the argument greg yes yes and where is this part that was didn't exhibit where to be which of those documents there is one document that i would request the court in its staff to look at is one thirty five which is our reply where we point out what they've done in their charts whether double and triple dip in one time entry for twenty two hundred dollars they seek reduction of fifty five hundred dollars but your honors i'd also call the court's attention to docket one forty eight s five page i d s forty four ninety six and forty four ninety seven these are some of  the the entries that the judge excoriates me for the kind years riddle matter and i have to explain something to this court the central one of the central issues of the kind years little matter was what happened in the mediation here your mediator because we disclosed before there was public disclosure of conyers bribing of other people we disclosed to that mediation the fact that she had solicited a bribe from us in the company until mediation so when the f b i contacted us after everything else had come out they wanted to know you're reading the newspaper now you can just say ok you guys were you know with a bribe solicitation and you're a strip club nobody's going to believe you did you did you disclose it anyplace else before got to the newspapers yes i did where did you disclose it in the company into a mediation that occurred at the order of this court which we could which led to if you look at those time entries your but look at the entry because then i had to go to the conyers case and tell my client that take into question the force judge anyone cone took order him to answer the question and they don't want me to get compensation thank you both for your argument the case will be submitted and with the clerk called the next case