Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NC.RTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

FILED

D.H. and T.H., as parents and next friend )

of their minor daughter, K.H.; and

)

SEP J 7 2006

B.S. and S.S., as parents and next friend )

their minor daughter, K.S.,

)

)

Phil Lombardi, Clerk
Y;8: 918T"'9T seYRT

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.

) )

caO,cv 52 3 CVE- SAJ

)

PONCA CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL )

DISTRICT NO. 71, KAY COUNTY

)

OKLAHOMA, aJk/a PONCA CITY

)

PUBLIC SCHOOLS; DR. DAVID

)

PENNINGTON, in his official capacity as )

Superintendent of PONCA CITY PUBLIC )

SCHOOLS; and DOES 1 through 50,

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT

The above-captioned Plaintiffs, D.H. and T.H., as parents and next friend of their minor

daughter, K.H.; and B.S. and S.S., as parents and next friend of their minor daughter, K.S.;

("Plaintiffs"), respectfully file this Complaint against Defendants, Ponca City Independent School

District No. 71, Kay County, Oklahoma, aJk/a Ponca City Public Schools; Dr. David Pennington,

in his official capacity as Superintendent of Ponca City Public Schools; and Does 1 through 50;

("Defendants"), and allege as follo'Ns:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This action is posed for declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants have violated

(1) Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. ("Title IX") and the

regulations adopted thereto, and (2) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983, by illegally denying Plaintiffs' daughters the

('.'1 (""vI

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 2 of 15
equal treatment and benefits that must necessarily accompany an equal opportunity to participate in athletics.
2. Defendants' denial ofequal treatment and benefits constitutes discrimination against the Plaintiffs' daughters based solely on their gender. Specifically, Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs' daughters in tht~ following areas: (l) funding of athletics; (2) equipment and supplies; (3) scheduling of games and pra4;tice times; and (4) assignment and compensation of coaches; (5) provision of locker riQoms and facilities for both practice and competition; and (6) provision of medical and training facilities and services.
3. This action seeks to redress the deprivation of the Plaintiffs' daughters' rights to receive the equal treatment and benefits which must necessarily accompany an equal opportunity to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics. This action seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated the Plaintiffs' daughters' rights under federal law. This action further seeks an injunction requiring :Oefendants to immediately cease their discriminatory practices and to remedy the effects oftheir discriminatory practices and to remedy the effects oftheir discriminatory conduct.
4. Plaintiffs seek injunc:tive reliefwhich, among other things, requires that Defendants provide Plaintiffs' daughters with treatment and benefits equivalent to that provided to the boys' athletic teams at Ponca City Public Schools.
JU:RISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The Plaintiffs' first daim arises under 20 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. and its interpreting regulations. Jurisdiction is conferred on l:his Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)( 4).
2

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 3 of 15
6. The Plaintiffs' sec:ond claiIn arises under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United Statt:s Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).
7. Jurisdiction for declaratory (md other relief is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.
8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The portion of the area served by Ponca City Public Schools in whic:h Plaintiffs live is in Osage County Oklahoma, and thus these claims arose in part in Osage County, Oklahoma, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
THE PARTIES 9. Plaintiffs D.H. and T.H. are the parents ofK.H., a 15-year-old 9th grade student in Ponca City Public Schools. K.H. is a talented athlete who participates in softball. She has endured the unequal treatment and benefits dlirected by Ponca City Public Schools toward its female athletes. D.H., T.H. AND K.H. are residents of Osage County, Oklahoma, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Plaintiffs B.S. and 8.S. are the parents ofK.S., a 15-year-old 10th grade student in Ponca City Public Schools. K.S. is ill talented athlete who participates in softball. She has endured the unequal treatment and benefits directed by Ponca City Public Schools toward its female athletes. B.S., S.S. and K.S. are residents ofOsage County, Oklahoma, which is within the jurisdiction ofthis Court. 11. Defendant Ponca Chy Independent School District No. 71, Kay County Oklahoma, alk/a Ponca City Public Schools, is a public school district authorized by Oklahoma law to operate and control Ponca City Senior High School, "'here the Plaintiffs' daughters are students. Therefore,
3

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 4 of 15
Ponca City Public Schools' conduct is considered state action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant Ponca City Public Schools is located in Ponca City, Oklahoma and serves part of Osage County, Oklahoma, which is within the jurisdiction c.fthis Court. Since the passage of Title IX, Ponca City Public Schools has received and continues 10 receive federal financial assistance and the benefits therefrom. Therefore, all programs at Ponca City Public Schools, including athletics, are subject to the requirements of Title IX.
12. Defendant, Dr. David Pennington, is the Superintendent of Schools at Ponca City Public Schools. Dr. David Pennington is a resident of the State of Oklahoma and thus is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
13. The named Plaintiffs are ignorant ofthe true names and capacities ofDoes 1-50, but believe them to be employees of Ponca City Public Schools or members of the Ponca City Public Schools Board of Education. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint to set forth their true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each ofthese fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the discriminatory actions alleged herein and that each is a resident of the State of Oklahoma and thus is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS THE :REOUIREMENTS OF TITLE IX 14. Title IX, enacted in 1972, provides in relevant part: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination unde:r any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
4

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 5 of 15
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 made Congress' intent plain that "program or activity", as used in Title IX, applies to any program or activity so long as any part of the public institution receives federal financial assistance. 20 U.S.C. § 1687. Thus, Ponca City Public Schools is subject to Title IX even ifnone ofthe funding for either its girls' or boys' athletic programs comes specifically from federal sources.
15. In 1975, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (the predecessor of the United States Department of Education ("DOE"» adopted regulations interpreting Title IX. These regulations are codified at 34 C.F.R. Part 106. (the "Regulations").
16. With regard to athletic programs, § 106.41(a) of 34 C.F.R. provides that interscholastic athletics are included within the "'program or activity" requirements of Title IX:
No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits 0 f, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient ... 17. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41 (c) specifies ten (10) factors that are to be considered in the determination of equal athletic opportunity: 1. Whether the: selection of sports and levels of competition effectively
accommodate the interest and abilities of members of both sexes; 2. The provision of equipment and supplies; 3. Scheduling of games ,md practice time; 4. Travel and per diem allowance; 5. Opportunity to receive: coaching and academic tutoring;
5

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 6 of 15
6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; 7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; 8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services; 9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; and 10. Publicity. Another factor to be considered is a school's "failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex." Id. 18. In 1979, the office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education ("OCR") issued a policy interpretation ofTitle IX and the Regulations. This policy interpretation is found at 44 Fed. Reg. 71413 (1979) (the "Policy Interpretation"). 19. The Policy Interpretation provides that, in order to comply with Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41 (c), schools must provide equal athletic opportunities in three general areas: (l) awarding ofscholarships (aimed primarily at problems at the intercollegiate level); (2) participation opportunities (including both the number of opportunities and whether the selection of sports and the level of competition effectively accomnlodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes); and (3) treatment and benefits. 44 Fed. Reg. at 71414.1 20. According to the Policy Interpretation, compliance in the area of equivalent participation opportunities is to be determin(:d by the following three-part test:
1Although the Policy Interpretation n~fers to "intercollegiate" sports, it is applicable to all recipients of federal education funds, including high schools, and is, thus, applicable to interscholastic high school sports as well as intercollegiate sports. 34 C.F.R. § 106.11. See also, 44 Fed. Reg. at 71413 which provides that the Policy Interpretation's "general principles will often apply to ... interscholastic athletic programs which are also covered by the Regulations."
6

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 7 of 15
(l) whether interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletic participation opportunitie:s for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
(2) where the rnembers of one sex have been and are underrepresented among interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrablly responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or
(3) where the nlembers cf one sex are underrepresented among interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be dernonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. See 44 Fed. Reg. at 71418.
21. Under both the Regulations and the Policy Interpretation, compliance in the area of equal treatment and benefits is assessed based on an overall comparison of the male and female athletic programs, including an analysis of factors (2) through (10) of34 C.F.R. § 106.41 (c) listed above and an analysis of whether the necessary funds are provided for teams of both sexes.
22. The Regulations require that sponsors of interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics (such as Ponca City Public Schools) take such remedial actions as are necessary to overcome the effects of gender discrimination in violation of Title IX. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.3(a).
7

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 8 of 15
On information and belief, any renledial actions which Ponca City Public Schools has taken in the past have been insufficient to satisfy Ponca City Public Schools' obligations under Title IX.
23. The Regulations further require that sponsors of interscholastic and other schoolsponsored athletics comply with th~~ Regulations within three years oftheir effective date (which was July 21, 1975). Now, more than thirty-one (31) years later, Ponca City Public Schools has still not fully complied with Title IX.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 24. The Fourteenth Amlendment to the United States Constitution requires that a state shall not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. II 25. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants may be held liable for their actions in violating Plaintiffs' daughters' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 26. Plaintiffs are entitled to injun(!tive reliefto end Defendants' unequal, discriminatory, and unlawful treatment of female student athletes. Because of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs' daughters continue to bt: deprived of the rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States. Failure to grant the injunctive relief requested will result in irreparable harm to Plaintiffs' daughters in that Plaintiffs' daughters' rights will be violated and that Plaintiffs' daughters will nl~ver be able to participate in interscholastic and/or other schoolsponsored athletics on an equal basis with their male classmates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law for this harm. This threatened harm far outweighs any possible harm that granting injunctive reliefmight cause Defendants. Finally, the injunctive relief sought would in no
8

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 9 of 15
way disserve the public interest but, on the contrary, would prevent discrimination based on gender and would promote the goal offuH equality before the law.
ATTORNEYS' FEES 27. Plaintiffs have been required to retain the undersigned attorneys to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs are entitled to re(:over reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: TITLE IX (Unequal Treatment and Benefits)
28. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference paragraphs 1 through 27 inclusive of this Complaint.
29. Ponca City Public Schools, by its conduct, has violated Title IX by discriminating against female students, including the Plaintijfs' daughters, by failing to provide them with treatment and benefits which are comparable overall to the treatment and benefits provided to male athletes.
30. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Ponca City Public Schools has failed to comply with Title IX by failing to provide their daughters with comparable treatment and benefits including, but not limited to, the following areas:
(1 ) Ponca City Public Schools funds athletics in a manner that discriminates against Plaintiffs' daughters and other female athletes.
(2) Ponca City Public S·chools provides male athletes with equipment and supplies in a manner that discriminates against female athletes. For example, Ponca City Schools re:quires the softball team to raise money for sufficient equipment and supplies, including bats, pitching machine, balls for the
9

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 10 of 15
pitching machine, protective screens, bases for the field, chalker and uniforms. (3) Ponca City Public Schools unfairly discriminates against Plaintiffs' daughters and other ft~male athletes in the scheduling of practices and games. For example, softball ganles are scheduled to begin between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. On the other hand, baseball games are scheduled to begin between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., allowing the parents ofbaseball players more opportunity to attend their sons' games and the community more opportunity to support baseball. In addition, softball is scheduled to play fewer games than baseball, at both the Junior Varsity and Varsity levels, even though more games are allowable under OSSAA rules. Also, softball has not been afforded the opportunity for off-st:ason training that other sports, such as baseball, are afforded. (4) Ponca City Public Schools unfairly discriminates against Plaintiffs' daughters and other feluale athletes in the assignment and compensation of coaches. For example.! some coaches of girls' athletic teams are paid less as compared to coaches of boys' athletic teams. In addition, Ponca City Public Schools selects its coaches for female athletic teams with less effort, care and attention than for male athletic teams. (5) Ponca City Public Schools supplies superior locker rooms, practice facilities and competition facilities to boys as compared to girls. For example, softball players do not have access to a locker room. Baseball players do have such
10

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 11 of 15
access adjacent to their field. Softball players change in the public bathroom at the field, several nliles from campus. The baseball program is provided with a superior field on campus, while softball is provided with an inferior field off canlpus. Th,! baseball field has painted cinder block dugouts with storage attac:hed to the home dugout. The softball field has inferior, chainlink dugouts. The benches in the baseball dugouts are superior to the benches in the softball dugouts. The baseball dugout has a painted school mascot logo. The softball dugouts have no such logo or walls on which such a logo could be painted. Tht: baseball field has a cinder block, enclosed press box. The softball field has a raised, open metal platform for a press box. The baseball field has rais,ed grandstand-type bleachers. The softball field has a small set ofbleachers 'without even handrails. The baseball field has a public address syste:m. The softball program recently received an old public address system handed down from some other program that got a new one. The baseball field has multiple batting cages. The softball field has one inferior batting cage as compared to the baseball batting cages. The baseball program has a mobile batting cage for batting practice prior to a game. The softball program has no such batting cage. The lights at the baseball field are superior to the lights at the softball field. The baseball field is better maintained than the softball :field. The baseball field has a screened outfield fence with advertisements. The softball field has a chainlink outfield fence.
11

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 12 of 15
(6) Ponca City Public Schools unfairly discriminates against girls' athletic teams as compared to boys' athletic teams in the provision ofmedical and training facilities and service5.. For example, softball players do not have access to trainers. Baseball players do have such access. In addition, male athletes are provided superior aecess to appropriate weight training facilities and equipment as compared to female athletes, including softball players.
31. The imbalance in the treatm,ent of female and male athletes at Ponca City Public Schools, as detailed above, demonstrates Ponca City Public Schools' failure to comply with Title IX.
32. Ponca City Public Schools' conduct has persisted despite the mandates of the Regulations, particularly 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.3(a) and 106.41(d), and the Policy Interpretation.
33. Ponca City Public S,;;hools' conduct violates 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., as interpreted
by 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.31 and 106.41 and the Policy Interpretation thereof. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: EQUAL PROTECTION
34. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference paragraphs 1 through 33 inclusive ofthis Complaint.
35. Defendants, by their fail ure to provide Plaintiffs' daughters with equivalent treatment and benefits as the male athletes (as detailed above), have illegally discriminated against Plaintiffs' daughters and other female students on the basis ofgender, and have illegally deprived them oftheir rights to equal protection secured by the Fowteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
36. Defendants have ill(~gally failed and refused to remedy the unequal treatment and benefits received by Plaintiffs' daughters and other female athletes as compared to male athletes at
12

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 13 of 15
Ponca City Public Schools. Therefore, D,efendants' actions constitute an illegal disregard for Plaintiffs' daughters' constitutional rights.
37. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the IJnited States Code provides, in part: Every person who, lmder color ofany statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia subjects, or causes to be subjectl~d, any citizen ofthe United States or other person within the jurisdiction tht::reof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ...
38. When Defendants engaged in the improper actions described above, they were acting under color oflaw for purposes ofthe Equal Protection Clause ofthe United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under this section, the Defendants are liable for their violations ofthe Plaintiffs' daughters' constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
RELIE:F REQUESTED WHEREFORE, on each of their claiJns, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: A. Enter an order declaring tha-r Defendants have engaged in a past and continuing pattern and practice ofdiscrimination against female students, including Plaintiffs' daughters, on the basis of gender in violation of Title IX and the regulations promulgated thereunder (including unequal treatment and benefits), and the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
13

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 14 of 15
B. Issue a permanent injunction (a) restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, successors and any other persons acting in concert with them, from continuing to maintain practices and policies ofdiscrimination against Plaintiffs' daughters on the basis ofgender, and (b) requiring Defendants, imrnediately upon issuance of the injunctive order, to adopt and implement a budget and plan which corrects and remediates Defendants' violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a plan should include, among other things, providing Plaintiffs' daughters and other female athletes with treatment and benefits comparable to those provided to male athletes.
C. Grant an expedited hearing and ruling on the permanent injunction request in paragraph B above.
D. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to U.S.C. § 1988. E. Order such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. F. Designate that the trial take place before the U. S. District Court in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Dated: '1;,2(' .0 C
Respectfully submitted,
Tennessee Attorney Registration #021810 Suite 200, 4113 Cumby Road Cookeville, TN 38501 Telephone: (931) 528-5050 Fax: (931) 528-5051 Email: sjs{a{schillerlawfilm.com
14

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/27/06 Page 15 of 15 Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
C:\tm\Titie IX\Ponca City OK\pleadings\2006-0925 Complaint.wpd
15

 
 Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 36 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/11/07 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

D.H. and T.H., as parents and next friend of )

their minor daughter, K.H., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

)

PONCA CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

)

DISTRICT NO. 71, et. al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 06-CV-523 CVE-SAJ

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Comes on for Report and Recommendation Plaintiffs’ Motion for Awarding of

Attorney Fees and Costs [Dkt. # 28]. Having considered the briefs of the parties, the

court hereby enters the following findings and recommendations.

A plaintiff who is a prevailing party is ent itled to recover attorneys’ fees under 42

U.S.C. § 1988. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).It is stipulated and agreed

that the Plaintiffs are prevailing parties and the only issue for the court is determination of

the reasonable attorneys’ feesand costs. The parties enteredinto a Settlement Agreement

dated April 9, 2007 which s ettled any and all claims herein except “The parties have

agreed to submit the issue of fees and costs to be awarded to the court for determination

on the basis of briefs submitted.”

I. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY

A. Excessive Hours

The court has considered the argumentsof Defendant, Independent School District

1

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 36 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/11/07 Page 2 of 8
No. 71 of Kay Count y, Oklahoma, a/k/a Ponca City Public Schools, the only Defendant which filed brief in opposition tothe motion, in the order presented in Defendant’s brief. In Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546 (10 th Cir. 1983), a civil rights cas e involving prison conditions in Colorado, the court examined in some detail the relevant factors in awarding attorneys’ fees in a civil rights case. The Ramos court found “T he most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonabl e fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplei d by a reasonable hourly rate.Hensley v. Eckerhart,461 U.S. 424, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed.2d 40 (1983).” The court gave further direction as follows:
The district court must determine not just the actual hour s expended by counsel, but which of those hours were reasonably expended in the litigation. Ramos v. Lamm , 713 F. 2d at 553. Defendant argues that the total of 172.75 hours was excessive because there were no dispositive motions, hearing or trial pr eparation and that counsel for the Defendant devoted only 131.2 hours to the case. Defendantrequest that Plaintiffs’ hours be reduced by one third from 172.75 to 115.25. Plaintiffs explain that Pal intiffs’ counsels’ involvement in the case began two months pr ior to Defendants’. A detailed review of Plaintiffs’ time records reveals no large blocks of time committed to a particular task that would suggest more time was used than needed for the particular task. In fact there are no large blocks of time other than preparat ion of discovery requests and depositions, the settlement conference and the preparation of the motion for attorneys’ fees. The court does find excessive hours of 14.25 and 18.00 billed on 01/10/2007 and 01/12/2007, respectively, in which it appears one of Plaintiffs’ counsel charged his full hourly rate for travel time between his resdience in Tennessee and Oklahoma. Travel time
2

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 36 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/11/07 Page 3 of 8

can be charged at the full rate ifcounsel is working full time during travel. The court finds

any hours worked on the days in question

beyond nine hours is excessive and

recommends 14.25 hours be deleted from the total requested. The court also finds the

11.25 hours for discovery request and deposition prepar ation to be excessive in view of

counsels’ expertise and experience and recommends 5 hours be deleted from the total

requested.

B. Unnecessary Duplication

Defendant argues that there was unnecessary duplication in the efforts of Yasser

and Schiller and urges the Ramos prescription that “the districtcourt should give particular

attention to the possibility of duplication.” Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F. 2d at 553, 554. The

court finds no duplication of effort in this case. Yasser had very little involvement outside

his presence at the settlement conference. The court finds the presence of both counsel

was valuable and necess ary and each made important contributions at settlement

conference. As the Ramos court noted, “Because utilizing more than one lawyer may be

reasonable in some situations, such as during settlement conferences or during trial, we

decline to require an aut omatic reduction of reported hours to adjust for multiple

representation or potential duplication.” Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F. 2d at 553, 554.

C. Lack of specificity in billing records.

Defendant argues the billing records lack the specificity required by Hensley and

Case v. Unified School District No. 233, Johnson County, 157 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 1998).

The Case court complained, “None of the billing entries describe the subject matter of the

telephone conversations. . .” Case v. Unified, 153 F.3d at 1252.

3

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 36 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/11/07 Page 4 of 8
This court has reviewed the authorities presented by Defendant and finds nothing that would require greater specificity in Plaintiffs’ billing records. Plaintiffs are obligated to state how the charged time was spent so t hat the court can evaluate whether the time charged is reasonable for that task. This has been done. If required to note the subject matter of the voluminous .25 hour telephone calls, such record keeping would increase the total charges for no good reason.
D. Reasonableness of the hourly rate The Tenth Circuit has stated that “[t]he first step in setting a rate of compensation for the hours reasonably expended is to determine what lawyers of comparable skill and experience practicing in the area in which the litigation occurs would charge for their time. . . . Absent more unusual circumstances than wesee in this case, the fee rates of the local area should be applied even when t he lawyers seeking fees are from another area.” Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F. 2d at 555. Counsel for Defendant recites that she charged an hourly rate of $205.00 in this matter and argues the hourly rate for Plai ntiffs’ counsel should be $225.00 per hour. Plaintiffs’ counsel request $275.00 per hour. I n support, the affidavit of Tulsa attorney Steven A. Novick is submitted, in which heopines that “the reasonable billing rate for each of plaintiffs’ attorneys would be in the range of $250.00 to $275.00 per hour.” This district has previously considered the appropriate hourly rate for lawyers of the highest level of competence and experience and found that rate to be $250.00 per hour. In the words of Magistrate Judge Cleary, ONG may wisely and for good reason chooseto travel the litigation highway in a Lexus rather than the more common Chevrolet. However, under a feeshifting statute such as presented here, the losing party is only responsible
4

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 36 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/11/07 Page 5 of 8

for the cost of the Chevrolet, if t hat is the stan dard in t he community. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. V. Apache Corp, 355 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1255 (2004).

Without commenting on whether Plaintiffs’ c ounsel is more akin to a Por sche or a Volkswagen, the count recommends $250.00 is an appropriate hourly rate in this case in this community.

E. Travel and other Cost reimbursement

Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for tr avel and other expenses in the amount of

$1799.33. Defendant argues t hat these costs, including travel ex penses, are not

reimbursable under Tenth Circuit law. The

Ramos court considered expense

reimbursement is some detail. In regard to travel expenses,

Items that are normally itemized and billed in addition to the hourly rate should be included in fee allowances in civil rights c ases if reasonable in amount. However, because there is noneed to employ counsel from outside the area in most cases, we do not think travel ex penses for such counsel between their offices and the city in which the litigation is conducted should be reimbursed. Departure from this rule should be made in unusual cases only. Thus, the district court properly disallowed travel costs to and from Denver for counsel based in Washingt on, D.C. The dis trict court properly allowed reimbursement for the expens e of travel between Denver and t he Canon City prison, given its finding that such costs would normally be billed to a private client. Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F. 2d at 555.

Subsequently, in Brown v. Gray, 227 F.3d 1278, 1297 (10 th Cir. 2000), the court gave
additional perspective.
There are two separate sources of aut hority courts use to awar d out-ofpocket expenses to a prevailing party. Some expenses, such as travel, may be included in the concept of attor ney's fees as “incidental and necessary expenses incurred in furnishing effecitve and competent representation.” 122 Cong. Rec. H12160 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1976) (statement of Rep. Drinan) .
5

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 36 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/11/07 Page 6 of 8
These expenses are thus authorized by 1. section 1988. See Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 698 F.2d 1181, 1190 (11th Cir.1983) (“Reasonable attorneys' fees under [ section 1988] must include reasonable expenses because attorneys'fees and expenses are inseparably intertwined as equally vital components of the costs of litigation.”). Brown v. Gray, 227 F.3d 1278, 1297 (10th Cir. 2000).
As the court stated, there is normally no need to employ counsel from outside the area and travel expenses should not be allowed. Departure from this rule should be made in unusual cases only. This is such an unusual case. Plaintiffs’ counsel have a very high level of expertise in t he very focused area of Title IX litigation as indicated by the three pages of case citat ions included in Plaintiffs ’ brief in which they have served as lead counsel. Plaintiffs could not have found the combination of lawyers with that expertise locally. That expertise benefitted Plaintiffs inbringing about improvement to the girls’ sports facilities in Ponca City. Thus, travel expenses of $785.85 and hotel expenses of $234.78 should be reimbursed. Per diem requests of $150.00 should be denied as being beyond necessarily incurred travel expense.
Regarding the other costs requested, the Ramos court provides guidelines as well. Although some fir ms separately item ize and bill long distance telephone charges, copying costs, and some other expenses, these kinds of expenses should be allowed as fees only if such expenses are usually charged separately in t he area. In the instant case, we believe the district court properly found s uch costs are norma lly absorbed as part of the firms' overhead, and correctly refused reimbursement for photocopying, postage, telephone, books, and overtime secretarial work. Ramos 713 F. 2d at 555. In Brown v. Gray, 227 F.3d 1278, 1297 the court added, We set forth the guidelines for awarding out-of-pocket expenses pursuant tosection 1988 in Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546 (10th Cir.1983). We held there that “[i]tems that are normally itemized and billed in addition to the
6

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 36 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/11/07 Page 7 of 8
hourly rate should be included in fee allowances in civil rights cases if reasonable in amount.” Id. at 559; see also Sussman, 108 F.3d at 1213. In other words, reasonable out-of-pocket expenses not normally absorbed as part of law firm overhead should be reimbur sed as attorney's fees under section 1988. In deciding whether to award such expenses, the district court must determine whether “such expenses are usually charged separately in the area.” Sussman, 108 F.3d at 1213 . This necessarily involves a factual inquiry into the billing practices of law firms in t he region who provide services to fee-paying clients.
Based upon the above analysis the court fi nds the request for reimbursement of filing fees of $350.00, postageof $54.00, and copies of $1680. 0 should be granted and the request for file set-up of $54.00 should be deneid as not being normally charged separately in the Tulsa legal community. The court findsthe copies are “necessarily obtained” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). The court finds nothing in the lower court rulings of Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 395 F.Supp.2d 1065 (D.Kan. 2005) or Pehr v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 404 (D.Kan.2000) that compels a different result.
II. RECOMMENDATION The court recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Awarding of Attorney Fees and Costs [Dkt. # 28] be granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the court concludes attorney fees at the hourly rate of $250. 00 for 153.50 hours, for a total of $38,375.00 should be awarded to Plaintiffs to be pai d by Defendant. Costs should be awarded as detailed above in the total amount of $1590.33.
III. OBJECTIONS In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) andFed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Objections must be filed with the Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
7

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 36 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/11/07 Page 8 of 8
within 10 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 ( as to computation of time periods). If specific written objections are timely filed, the district judge assigned to this case will
make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has adopted a “firm waiver rule” in connection with appeals from orders adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. “[T]he failure t o make timely objections to the magistrate’s findings or recommendations waives appellate review of factual and legal question”s. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)). Thus, a timely, specific and written objection is necessary to preserve an issue forde novo review by the assigned district judge and for appellate review by the court of appeals. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 1999); and Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411 (10th Cir. 1996). Dated this 11th day of September 2007.
8

 
 Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 37 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/26/07 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

D.H. and T.H., as parents and next friend of their minor daughter, K.H.; and B.S. and S.S., as parents and next friend of their minor daughter, K.S.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Ponca City Independent School District No. 71, Kay County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Ponca City Public Schools; Dr. David Pennington, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Ponca City Public Schools; and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-CV-0523-CVE-SAJ

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER This matter comes on for consideration of Magistr ate Judge Sam A. Joyner’s report and recommendation on plaintiffs’ Motion for Awarding of Attorney Fees and Costs (Dkt. # 28). Plaintiffs requested compensation for 172.75 hours of attorney fees billed at $275 per hour, but the magistrate judge recommended that plaintiffs should be awarded 153.50 hours at $250 per hour. The total amount of attorney fees based on these f igures is $38,375. He also recom mended that $1,590.33 in costs should be awarded to plaintiffs. Objections to the report and recommendation were due on September 25, 2007, and no party has filed an objection. The Court has independently reviewed the report and recommendation, and finds no reason to modify or reject it.

Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 37 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/26/07 Page 2 of 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
(Dkt. # 36) isaccepted and plaintiffs’ Motion for Awarding ofAttorney Fees and Costs (Dkt. # 28) is granted in part and denied in part . Plaintiffs are awarded $38,375 in attor ney fees and $1,590.33 in costs. A separate judgment concerning the award of attorney fees and costs is entered herewith.
DATED this 26th day of September, 2007.
2

 
 Case 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC Document 38 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/26/07 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

D.H. and T.H., as parents and next friend of their minor daughter, K.H.; and B.S. and S.S., as parents and next friend of their minor daughter, K.S.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Ponca City Independent School District No. 71, Kay County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Ponca City Public Schools; Dr. David Pennington, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Ponca City Public Schools; and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-CV-0523-CVE-SAJ

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

This matter comes on for consideration of plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorney fees

and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Court has reviewed the m otion, and finds that plaintiffs’

counsel is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs as set forth in the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation (Dkt. # 36). Order was entered accordingly (Dkt. # 37).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREEDthat judgment is hereby

entered in favor of plaintiffs D.H. and T.H., as parents and next friend of K.H., and B.S. and S.S.,

as parents and next friend of K.S. and against defendants Ponca City Independent School District

No. 71 and David Pennington, in his official capacity, in the total amount of $39,965.33 ($38,375

attorney fees and $1,590.33 costs), plus post-judgm ent interest thereon at the rate of 4.11 % per

annum from this date until paid.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2007.

 
 USDC ND/OK Case: 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC As of: 01/31/2014 03:52 PM CST Page 1 of 5
CLOSED,DISCREF,LC−1
U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:06−cv−00523−CVE−PJC

DH et al v. Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 et al Assigned to: Judge Claire V Eagan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/27/2006 Date Terminated: 09/28/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

DH as parent and next friend of their minor daughter K.H. − KH

represented by Raymond L Yasser Smolen Smolen &Roytman PLLC 701 S CINCINNATI AVE TULSA, OK 74119 918−585−2667 Fax: 918−585−2669 Email: raymond−yasser@utulsa.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel J Schiller Schiller Law Firm 4113 Cumby Rd Ste 200 Cookeville, TN 38501 931−528−5050 Fax: 931−528−5051 Email: sjs@schillerlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
TH as parent and next friend of their minor daughter, K.H.

represented by Raymond L Yasser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel J Schiller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
BS as parent and next friend of their minor daughter, K.S. − KS

represented by Raymond L Yasser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel J Schiller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
SS as parent and next friend of their minor daughter, K.S.

represented by Raymond L Yasser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC As of: 01/31/2014 03:52 PM CST Page 2 of 5
Samuel J Schiller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 Kay County Oklahoma also known as Ponca City Public Schools
Defendant David Pennington Dr., in his official capacity as Superintendent of Ponca City Public Schools
Defendant John Doe sued as: Does 1 through 50

represented by Karen Lea Long Rosenstein Fist &Ringold 525 S MAIN STE 700 TULSA, OK 74103 918−585−9211 Fax: 918−583−5617 Email: karenl@rfrlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lea Long (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006 10/19/2006 10/19/2006
10/23/2006 11/01/2006
11/02/2006

# Docket Text
1 CIVIL COVER SHEET by SS, DH, TH, BS (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
2 COMPLAINT against Ponca City Independent School District No. 71, David Pennington, John Doe by SS, DH, TH, BS (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
3 MOTION for Permanent Injunction (submitted as part of # 2 ) by SS, DH, TH (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
4 SEALED REFERENCE LIST per Local Rule 5.3(b) (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
5 SUMMONS Issued by Court Clerk as to David Pennington , Don Nuzum (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
6 FILING FEES Paid in Full by SS, DH, TH, BS (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: David Pennington − Served on 10/12/2006. by SS; DH; TH; BS (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 − Served on 10/12/2006. by SS; DH; TH; BS (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
9 ERRATA/CORRECTION (Re: 8 Summons Returned Executed) by SS, DH, TH, BS (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
10 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) to Answer or Further Plead by Ponca City Independent School District No. 71, David Pennington (Long, Karen) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
11 ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan, granting 10 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s), setting/resetting/terminating answer deadline(s): Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 answer due on 11/16/2006; David

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC As of: 01/31/2014 03:52 PM CST Page 3 of 5

11/16/2006 11/17/2006 12/18/2006 12/19/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006
12/20/2006 01/17/2007 01/17/2007
01/25/2007
03/02/2007

Pennington answer due on 11/16/2006 (Re: 2 Complaint) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
12 ANSWER to Complaint (Re: 2 Complaint) by Ponca City Independent School District No. 71, David Pennington (Long, Karen) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
13 ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan, directing parties to file joint status report, Status Report due by 12/18/2006 (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
14 JOINT STATUS REPORT by SS, DH, TH, BS, David Pennington, Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 (Schiller, Samuel) Modified on 12/19/2006 to add filers (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 12/18/2006)
NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: All filers were not selected when e−filed; Correction: Edited docket text and added David Pennington and Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 as filers to document (Re: 14 Joint Status Report per Local Rule 16.1) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
15 MINUTE ORDER : The referral judge in this case is transferred and reassigned to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Cleary, changing case number to 06−CV−523−CVE−PJC, reassigning case to Judge Paul J Cleary, Judge Sam A Joyner no longer assigned to case (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
16 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan, setting/resetting scheduling order date(s): Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law due 7/9/2007, Discovery due by 4/1/2007, Dispositive Motions due by 5/1/2007, Proposed Pretrial Order due by 6/25/2007, Pretrial Conference set for 7/6/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge Claire V Eagan, Nonjury Trial set for 7/23/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge Claire V Eagan (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
17 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (Please see order for details), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Settlement Conference set for 1/12/2007 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
18 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner , case settled, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Dismissal Papers due by 2/26/2007 (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
19 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner : A settlement of the case has been reached in concept. Counsel Karen Long and Sam Schiller are to confer on the language of the settlement agreement. The court sets a telephone conference with Schiller and Long on January 25th at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the status of the settlement agreement. A supplemental settlement conference is set at 9:30 a.m. on February 6th, if needed, to resolve any remaining issues., setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Settlement Conference set for 2/6/2007 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner, Status Hearing set for 1/25/2007 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
20 MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner : Status Hearing held on 1/25/2007, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): Parties appear by phone at the Status Hearing to discuss the settlement agreement. The Status Hearing is reset for March 2, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. Any Court ordered deadlines are stayed pending the Supplemental Settlement Conference on March 13, 2007 at 1:30 p.m., Settlement Conference set for 3/13/2007 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner, Status Hearing set for 3/2/2007 at 09:15 AM before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (Court Reporter: Not Recorded) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
21 MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner : Status Hearing held on 3/2/2007 : Parties appear by phone at the Status Hearing to discuss the settlement agreement. The Court strikes the Supplemental Settlement Conference set for 3/13/07 at 1:30 PM and sets a Supplemental Status Hearing for 3/13/07 at 9:30 AM. The Court will initiate the phone call., setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Status Hearing set for 3/13/2007 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (Court Reporter: No Recorded) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC As of: 01/31/2014 03:52 PM CST Page 4 of 5

03/02/2007 03/14/2007 03/27/2007 05/23/2007 05/23/2007 05/25/2007
06/26/2007 06/26/2007 06/27/2007 07/16/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 09/07/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007

22 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan : 7/6/2007 Pretrial Conference reset to an earlier date, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Pretrial Conference set for 7/3/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge Claire V Eagan (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
23 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (Please see report for details), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Settlement Conference set for 3/27/2007 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
24 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner negotiations are still pending, striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
25 SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (Please see order for details) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
26 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner case settled, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
27 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan deadlines are stricken, including pretrial conference and non−jury trial, pursuant to settlement [25, 26]; briefing deadlines on the attorneys fees and costs issue SHALL REMAIN AS PREVIOUSLY SET by Magistrate Judge Joyner (see 25 ), striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s) (Re: 22 Minute Order, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), 16 Scheduling Order,, Setting/Resetting Scheduling Order Date(s), Setting/Resetting Scheduling Order Date(s), 26 Settlement Conference Report, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s) ) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
28 First MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by SS, DH, TH, BS (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
29 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 28 First MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs ) by SS, DH, TH, BS ; (With attachments) (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
30 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan, referring motion(s) to Magistrate Judge Joyner (Re: 29 Brief in Support of Motion, 28 First MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs ) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 28 First MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs ) by Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 ; (With attachments) (Long, Karen) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
32 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that, based on advice of settlement (Dkt. # 26) ; finding as moot 3 Motion for Permanent Injunction (Re: 26 Settlement Conference Report, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s) ) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
33 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 28 First MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs ) by SS, DH, TH, BS ; (With attachments) (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
34 OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner ; granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion for Attorney Fees (lmc, Dpty Clk) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/12/2007 to add VACATED watermark per Minute Order #35 (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 09/07/2007)
35 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner : The Opinion and Order [Document #34] is stricken. A Report and Recommendation will be entered., striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 34 Opinion and Order, Ruling on Motion for Attorney Fees ) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner (Re: 28 First MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs ) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:06-cv-00523-CVE-PJC As of: 01/31/2014 03:52 PM CST Page 5 of 5

09/26/2007
09/26/2007 09/26/2007
09/28/2007 09/28/2007 01/11/2008 01/07/2011

37 ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation 36 is accepted, and plaintiffs motion for awarding of attorneys fees and costs 28 is granted in part and denied in part; separate judgment regarding award of attorney fees and costs is entered herewith ; accepting 36 Report and Recommendation (Re: 2 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
38 JUDGMENT by Judge Claire V Eagan, awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs and against defendants Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 and David Pennington, in his official capacity (Re: 37 Order,,,, Ruling on Report and Recommendation, ) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
39 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that, judgement regarding attorney fees having been entered 38 , the parties are directed to file a fully executed stipulation of dismissal no later than 10/1/07, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Dismissal Papers due by 10/1/2007 (Re: 26 Settlement Conference Report, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), 38 Judgment,,,, Awarding Attorney Fees, ) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
40 STIPULATION of Dismissal, closing case, by SS, Ponca City Independent School District No. 71, David Pennington, John Doe, DH, TH, BS (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
***Civil Case Terminated (see document number 40 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
41 NOTICE of Filing Afficavit by Ponca City Independent School District No. 71 (Long, Karen) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
42 RELEASE AND SATISFACTION of Judgment (Re: 38 Judgment,,,, Awarding Attorney Fees, ) by BS, DH, SS, TH (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 01/07/2011)