UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

TO THE HONORABLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

COMES NOW, Defendant Mann Hospitality, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” 

or “Mann Hospitality”), and respectfully submits its Proposed Bill of Costs. Pursuant to Title 42 

U.S.C. § 12205, and the Fifth Circuit decision in Deutsch v. Jesus Becerra, Inc., No. 16-50164 (5th

Cir.2016), Defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees as costs of litigation. Defendant is 

submitting its bill of costs in accordance with FRCP 54(d)(2)(A) and local rule CV-54. Defendant 

would show the Court as follows: 

I. BACKGROUND

1. Ms. Deborah Laufer (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “Laufer”), a person 

with a physical disability and mobility impairments, filed an action against Defendant, for

declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses against Defendant 

for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181, et seq. 

(“ADA”).

2. Defendant obtained a Final Judgment against Plaintiff on October 1, 2020. See Dkt

16). 

DEBORAH LAUFER, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 1:20-cv-00620-JRN

§

MANN HOSPITALITY, LLC §

Defendant. §

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 9
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Page 2 of 9

II. RELEVANT CASE LAW

3. Under the ADA statutes, attorney’s fees are authorized as costs of litigation, not 

damages. The Court should award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. “In any action or 

administrative proceeding commenced pursuant to this chapter, the court or agency, in its 

discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s 

fee, including litigation expenses, and costs, and the United States shall be liable for the foregoing 

the same as a private individual.” See Title 42 USC §12205.

4. The Supreme Court has upheld attorney’s fees as valid costs of litigation that can 

be awarded to the prevailing party as noted in Buckhannon v. West Virginia, 532 U.S. 598 (2001). 

To be a prevailing party and obtain fees, there must be a judgment on the merits and the attorney’s 

fees must be authorized by statute. A prevailing party is generally a party who succeeds on any 

significant issue in the litigation and that success provides some benefit that had been sought by 

the party. Davidson v. Veneman, 317 F.3d 503, 506 (5th Cir.2003). A plaintiff who obtained a 

permanent injunction is generally considered to be a prevailing party. Lefemine v. Wideman, 133 

S. Ct. 9 (2012).

5. When a statute defines ‘costs’ to include attorney’s fees, the fees are not damages. 

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 9 (1985). In the United States, a prevailing party is not ordinarily 

entitled to collect attorney’s fees from the losing party. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. V. Wilderness Soc’y, 

421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975). Despite the American Rule, a prevailing party may be entitled to 

attorney’s fees if the fees are specifically provided for by statute. Summit Valley Indus. V. Local 

112, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 456 U.S. 717, 721 (1982). Statutes do permit the court 

to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in an ADA case. See Title 42 USC §2000e-5(k) and 

42 USC §12205.

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 9
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Page 3 of 9

6. A party can claim attorney fees in its complaint or by motion. If attorney fees are 

recoverable as costs of suit, the party does not need to include a demand for them in the complaint. 

See FRCP 54(d)(2)(A). Instead, the party must file a motion requesting them. Id. A party must 

file a motion for attorney fees within 14 days after entry of judgment. See FRCP 54(d)(2)(A).

7. Most claims for attorney’s fees are as costs, not damages. Budinich v. Becton

Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 200 (1988). A party seeking attorney fees as costs is usually 

seeking fees for work done during the case. Rissman v. Rissman, 229 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir.2000). 

8. It is far reaching precedent that the relief available under the Americans with

Disabilities Act includes declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees as costs, and costs 

of litigation. The ADA is considered civil rights litigation. Numerous court decisions support the 

precedent of the ADA as civil rights litigation with the corresponding relief. The Fifth Circuit 

notes, “The ADA expressly provides that the remedies, procedures, and rights available under the 

Rehabilitation Act also apply to the ADA, and thus jurisprudence interpreting either statute is 

applicable to both. Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 

959, 121 S.Ct. 384, 148 L.Ed.2d 296 (2000).” See Frame v. Arlington, 55 F.3d 432, 435 (5th 

Cir.2009). 

9. The Supreme Court in Gorman notes, “Thus, the remedies for violations of § 202 

of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are coextensive with the remedies available in a 

private cause of action brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d 

et seq., which prohibits racial discrimination in federally funded programs and activities.” Barnes 

v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 185 (2002). The remedies available under Title VI include: declaratory 

judgment, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees as costs, and costs of litigation.

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 9
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Page 4 of 9

10. The accompanying civil rights statutes (of which the Americans with Disabilities 

Act are a part of) authorize attorney’s fees as costs. Title 42 USC §12205 reads, “In any action or 

administrative proceeding commenced pursuant to this chapter, the court or agency, in its 

discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s 

fee, including litigation expenses, and costs, and the United States shall be liable for the foregoing 

the same as a private individual.” See Title 42 USC §12205.

11. In Gorman, the Supreme Court ruled that punitive damages are not an available 

remedy under the ADA. However, Plaintiff in the instant case never requested punitive damages. 

Plaintiff only requests a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees as costs, and costs 

of litigation. If the Court awards injunctive relief, the Plaintiff would also be entitled to attorney’s 

fees.

12. On the issue of attorney’s fees and civil rights litigation, the Supreme Court notes,

“It follows that one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily 

recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Because 

no such circumstances are present here, the District Court on remand should include reasonable 

counsel fees as part of the costs to be assessed against the respondents.” Newman v. Piggie Park 

Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968). Newman is Supreme Court precedent that allows attorney’s 

fees as costs of litigation in civil rights cases.

13. The Fifth Circuit in Deutsch v. Jesus Becerra, Inc., No. 16-50164 (5th Cir.2016)

has ruled that the District Court should award attorney’s fees in an ADA case, as an ADA case is 

a type of Civil Rights litigation.

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 9
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Page 5 of 9

III. COSTS

14. The amount of the claim is a sum certain. The amount due is $8,610.00. The amount

is calculated based on the table that follows: 

Attorney’s Hours

DATE WORK PERFORMED ATTORNEY HOURS

07/09/2020

Discussion w/ Client. Review and analyze 

Original Complaint. Review and Retrieve 

Case Docket. 

Pimal Patel .8

07/14/2020

Phone Discussion w/ Client regarding 

settlement posture. Phone Discussion w/ P. 

Cullen. Correspondence to/from P. Cullen. 

Draft Motion to Extend to Respond. 

Pimal Patel 1.1

07/14/2020

Review Settlement Proposal by P. Cullen. 

Memo to Client Regarding Settlement. 

Research and Analyze Standing Issues. 

Retrieve various Court filings in Laufer’s 

cases against similar lodging owner. 

Discussion w/ Client. 

Pimal Patel 2.1

08/13/2020

Research regarding compliance for hotels 

with the ADA that have been constructed 

before ADA enactment. Begin skeleton Draft 

of Motion to Dismiss.

Pimal Patel .7

08/17/2020 Correspondence to/from P. Cullen. Review 

Proposed Scheduling Order. 

Pimal Patel .2

08/18/2020

Phone Discussion w/ P. Cullen. 

Correspondence to/from P. Cullen. Review 

DOJ Guidance. Phone Discussion w/ Client.

Pimal Patel .7

08/18/2020

Review case file, original petition, caselaw 

research, motion to dismiss based on Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

James McMartin 1.8

08/19/2020 Review/Revise Motion to Dismiss. Strategy 

discussion w/ Client.

Pimal Patel 2.2

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 9
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Page 6 of 9

08/20/2020

Finalize Motion to Dismiss and Proposed 

Order and Prepare Exhibits. Prepare for 

Filing. 

Pimal Patel 3.7

08/25/2020 Review Response to Motion for Leave. Pimal Patel .2

08/26/2020 Reviewed Docket Entry and Court Order. Pimal Patel .1

09/01/2020

Review Docket Entry. Analyze Plaintiff’s 

Statement and Memorandum in Opposition to 

Motion to Dismiss. 

Pimal Patel .5

09/03/2020 Research issues regarding in Memorandum In 

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. 

Pimal Patel .9

09/04/2020 Begin Skeleton Reply to Motion to Dismiss Pimal Patel .5

09/07/2020

Research and review caselaw supporting 

Defendant's Response to Memo in Opposition 

to Motion to Dismiss.

James McMartin .7

09/08/2020

Revise and edit Defendant's Response to 

Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition of 

Motion to Dismiss.

James McMartin 2.8

09/08/2020

Review and Finalize Reply to Response to 

Motion to Dismiss. Prepare for Filing. Phone 

Discussion w/ Client.

Pimal Patel .9

09/30/2020

Review Docket Entry and Court Order 

regarding Motion to Dismiss. Phone 

Discussion w/ Client. Phone Discussion w/ P. 

Cullen.

Pimal Patel .5

10/05/2020 Review Notice of Appeal and Docket Entry. Pimal Patel .1

10/06/2020

Correspondence to/from P. Cullen. Review 

Settlement Proposal and analysis of Fifth 

Circuit regarding appeal issues purported and 

raised by P. Cullen.

Pimal Patel .8

10/07/2020 Phone Discussion w/ Client. Correspondence 

to/from P. Cullen. 

Pimal Patel .9

10/13/2020 Draft of Defendant's Proposed Bill of Costs 

and Motion for Attorneys' Fees

Pimal Patel 1.4

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 6 of 9
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Page 7 of 9

10/13/2020

Draft Proposed Order and Affidavit for Draft 

of Defendant's Proposed Bill of Costs and 

Motion for Attorney Fees

Pimal Patel 1.0

Summary of Expenses

Total Attorney Fees 24.6 Attorney Hours multiplied by $350 per hour $8,610.00

15. Defendant’s counsel has included an affidavit about the costs as Exhibit A. 

IV. AS APPLIED TO THE INSTANT CASE

16. Defendant has met the requirements to obtain attorney’s fees in the instant case. 

The ADA is designed to allow the award to a prevailing party for reasonable attorney fees. See 42 

U.S.C. § 12205. A prevailing defendant may not receive fees “unless a court finds that [the plaintiff's] 

claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it 

clearly became so.” No Barriers, Inc. v. Brinker Chili's Texas, Inc., 262 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 

2001) citing Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 

648 (1978).

17. Here, Plaintiff filed its suit against Defendant despite failing to establish that she 

intents to patronize Defendant’s business. “Rather it appears that [Plaintiff] and her attorney’s sole 

intent in this litigation is to bully the Defendant into handing over as much money as possible, 

completely without a relationship with the business.” See Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

(Dkt 15). 

V. CONCLUSION

18. For the preceding reasons, the Defendant requests that the Court issue an order 

awarding costs of litigation to the Defendant, as allowed by statute, Supreme Court precedent, 

and Fifth Circuit precedent. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 7 of 9
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Page 8 of 9

THEREFORE, Mann Hospitality respectfully requests this Court grant the Motion and 

award Attorney’s Fees as part of the Judgment against Plaintiff Deborah Laufer in accordance with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §§12181, et seq.

Date: October 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

PATEL PC

/s/ Pimal A. Patel

Pimal A. Patel 

pimal@patelpc.com 

Texas Bar No. 24102335 

7324 Southwest Freeway, Suite 560 

Houston, Texas 77074 

Telephone: (713) 893-3637 

Facsimile: (713) 456-2521 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

MANN HOSPITALITY, LLC

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 8 of 9
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED OPPOSED BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify, that on October 14, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division 

using the electronic filing system of the court. The electronic filing system sent a “Notice of 

Electronic Filing” to the following attorney of record: 

Phillip Michael Cullen III, Esq.,

621 S. Federal Highway, Suite 4

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301

CULLENIII@aol.com

Telephone: (954) 462-0600

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

DEBORAH LAUFER

/s/ Pimal A. Patel

Pimal A. Patel

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify, that on October 6, 2020 and October 7, 2020, I conferred with Counsel for 

Plaintiff regarding the relief requested herein. Plaintiff Counsel has indicated it believes Defendant 

is not entitled to attorney fees. On October 14, 2020, I attempted to confirm Plaintiff’s Counsels 

opposition to this Motion. As of time of filing, Plaintiff Counsel has yet to confirm its opposition. 

Based on the October 6, 2020 and October 7, 2020 communications with Plaintiff Counsel, the 

undersigned assumes Plaintiff is Opposed to the relief requested herein.

/s/ Pimal A. Patel

Pimal A. Patel 

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 9 of 9