SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) Case No. 4:23-CV-01109

AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

VERIFIED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiff, ANTHONY CAIRNS (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, 

and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), Local Rule 7.3 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205, hereby move the 

Court for an award of attorney’s fees and costs against Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP 

LLC (“Defendant”), and as grounds thereof state: 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the above captioned case for injunctive relief, 

attorney’s fees, expenses and costs on December 15, 2023 against Defendant [D.E. 1].

2. This action was brought pursuant to the Americans with Disability Act and 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, any action commenced pursuant to said Act, the court may allow 

the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fees, including litigation expenses and costs.

3. This Court’s Order on Default Judgment against Defendant, AKS BUSINESS 

GROUP LLC [D.E. 8] granted Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant, as such, 

Plaintiff is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees. 

The Default Judgment [D.E. 8] stated, “The Court retains jurisdiction of the above-styled action 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 56
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

2

to permit Plaintiff to seek and determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs due to Plaintiff 

and to assure Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP LLC subsequent compliance with this 

Judgment and the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

4. Defendant was mailed the entered Default Judgment, Order Granting Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and the proposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, 

and no response was forthcoming.

ARGUMENT

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Plaintiff seeks an award of his attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, which 

provides, “In any action or administrative proceeding commenced pursuant to this Act, 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...”

Plaintiffs States:

• The following have been incurred on behalf of Plaintiff: $ 3,990.00 in attorney’s fees 

(13.3 hours at $300.00 per hour) See Schapiro Law Group, P.L. Time and Cost Sheet 

attached as Exhibit “1.”

• Plaintiff’s costs include the $405.00 filing fee. See Filing Fee receipt attached as Exhibit 

“2.”

• Plaintiff’s costs include service of process fees for Defendant, AKS BUSINESS GROUP 

LLC ($215.50 total). See Special Delivery Invoice attached as Exhibit “3.”

• $300.00 Reinspection fee to pay for the inspection of the Defendant’s property at the 

conclusion of the deadline to make the modifications pursuant to the Final Default 

Judgment.

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 57
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

3

• Out of Pocket expenses – postage ($65.34).

• Plaintiff’s counsel certifies that he has reviewed his firm’s time records and supporting 

data and that the motion is well grounded in fact and justified. Moreover, Mr. Schapiro’s 

Declaration establishes that he is highly experienced (over 2000 ADA cases filed in 

federal court) and seeks to efficiently resolve all of the ADA lawsuits he files. Thus,

justifying his $300.00 per hour rate. See Declaration of Douglas Schapiro attached as 

Exhibit 4. 

• Attorney Bruse Loyd, a Houston attorney with over twenty years of litigation experience 

has signed a Declaration attesting to the reasonableness of the $300.00 per hour rate 

sought by Mr. Schapiro, “Given that there are no available ADA attorneys in the Houston 

area with Mr. Schapiro’s extensive experience in this highly specialized area of practice, 

a $300 per hour rate is very reasonable and is below what I consider the prevailing 

market rates for similar services by similarly trained and experienced attorneys in this 

community.” See Declaration of Bruse Loyd attached as Exhibit 5.

• According to a survey taken in 2018 and published by the Texas Bar Association, the 

average hourly rate charged by Full-time private practitioners in Texas in 2017 was 

$281.00 per hour. See Texas Attorney Economics Survey attached as Exhibit 6. 

• According to the State Bar of Texas Department of Research and Analysis, in 2023, less 

than 1% of all attorneys in Texas practice civil liberties and civil rights litigation. See

2023-2024 Texas Bar Membership Survey attached as Exhibit 7. The number of 

attorneys in the Dallas/Fort Worth Area practicing civil rights litigation is even less as the

2022 Dallas County Attorney Statistical Profile survey did not even list “civil rights” as a 

category of practice on page 3 of the survey. See 2021-2022 Dallas County Attorney 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 58
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

4

Statistical Profile attached as Exhibit 8. The number of attorneys in the area actually 

practicing ADA law, specifically Title III ADA law, is an even more specialized form of 

Civil Rights litigation and thus, this specialization is not adequately represented or 

available to the public.

Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant for all attorneys' fees, litigation 

expenses and costs incurred in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). The relief obtained by 

the Plaintiff in this cause will not only benefit the Plaintiff, but every other individual with a 

disability who enters into and/or uses the subject premises. Therefore, Plaintiff would be entitled 

to fees equal to the unreduced lodestar amount where the public interest is also served. See, 

Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) (In analyzing plaintiff's 

application the Court must also consider the benefits the public as a whole obtained from this 

civil rights action); Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393 (11th Cir. 1996), Williams v . 

Roberts, 904 F.2d 634 (11th Cir. 1990), Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 

1996). Where, as here, the relief sought is injunctive (damages are not awardable under Title III 

of the ADA), it would be an error for the district court to reduce an award of attorneys' fees in a 

civil rights action even if the damages obtained were nominal if the Plaintiff vindicated a public 

policy. Lynch v. City of Milwaukee, 747 F.2d 423 (7th Cir. 1984); Staples v. Wickesberg, 122 

F.R.D. 541 (E.D. Wis. 1988); Butler v. Bourd, 979 F .2d 661 (8th Cir. 1992); McHenry v. 

Chadwick, 896 F.2d 184 (6th Cir. 1990). When determining the degree of success obtained by a 

civil rights plaintiff, a court must be careful not to place "undue emphasis on the modest money 

damages that were found by the jury" because successful civil rights actions vindicate public

interest. Williams v. Thomas, 692 F.2d 1032, 1038 (5th Cir. 1982).

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 59
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

5

In this situation, "the public as a whole benefits from this civil rights litigation, as 

distinguished from a private tort suit where only the individual plaintiff benefits . . . . "[S]uccess 

in a civil rights claim is measured differently than success in a private tort claim. Indeed: 

`Congress has elected to encourage meritorious civil rights claims because of the benefits of such 

litigation for the named plaintiff and for society at large, irrespective of whether the action seeks 

monetary damages. . . . Moreover, the Supreme Court has articulated th[is] distinction [by stating 

that] [u]nlike most private tort litigants, a civil rights plaintiff seeks to vindicate important civil 

and constitutional rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms."' Villano, 254 F.3d at 

1305 (quoting, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 96, 109 S.Ct. 939, 103 L .Ed.2d 67 (1989) 

and City of Riverside v. Rivera , 477 U.S . 561, 574, 106 S. Ct. 2686, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986). A

court that reduces such an attorney's fees award would err if it ignored the fact that the plaintiff 

in a civil rights action benefitted the public interest by vindicating his civil rights. See Jones v.

White, No. H-03-2286, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61685, at *20 (S.D. Tex. 2007) citing to Farrar v.

Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 115, 113 S. Ct. 566, 121 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1992). Therefore, all fees and 

costs sought should be awarded in full.

The first step in determining the lodestar analysis is to determine the reasonable rate to be 

awarded Plaintiff’s counsel and the reasonable hours that counsel is entitled to.

The Fifth Circuit uses the lodestar analysis to determine reasonable attorneys' fees.

Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 98 F.3d 817, 821 (5th Cir. 1996)). The lodestar amount is "the

product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate." Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Council for

Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 564, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1986). There is a "'strong

presumption' that the lodestar represents the 'reasonable' fee." City of Burlington v. Dague, 505

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 60
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

6

U.S. 557, 562, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449 (1992); see also [*4] Perdue v. Kenny A. ex

rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 130 S. Ct. 1662, 1672-73, 176 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2010).

The first step in computing the lodestar is determining a reasonable hourly rate.

"'[R]easonable' hourly rates 'are to be calculated according to the prevailing market [*5] rates in

the relevant community.'" McClain v. Lufkin Indus., 649 F.3d 374, 381 (5th Cir.

2011) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (1984)). "The

prevailing market rates for similar services by similarly trained and experienced lawyers in the

relevant legal community is the established basis for determining a reasonable hourly rate."

Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2002). "When an attorney's customary

billing rate is the rate at which the attorney requests the lodestar be computed and that rate is

within the range of prevailing market rates, the court should consider this rate when fixing the

hourly rate to be allowed. When that rate is not contested, it is prima

facie reasonable." Kellstrom, 50 F.3d, at 328. "Determination of the reasonable hourly rate for a

particular community is generally established through affidavits of other attorneys practicing

there." Chisholm v. Hood, 90 Fed. App'x. 709, 710 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Watkins v.

Input/Output, Inc., 531 F. Supp. 2d 777, 784 (S.D. Tex. 2007) ("The evidence to support a

hourly rate entails more than an affidavit of the attorney performing the work but must also

address the rates actually billed and paid in similar lawsuits."). See Malick v. NCO Fin. Servs., 

No. H-14-1545, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87071, at *4-5 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

The undersigned conducted a review of case law in the Eastern District of Texas seeking 

an order awarding attorney’s fees for a “Title III ADA” case. None were available to review. A 

further search of case law in the Southern District of Texas provided one Order awarding 

attorney’s fees. The undersigned entered “"reasonable hourly rate" and ADA and Title III” into 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 61
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

7

Lexis Advance and nothing came up for the Southern District of Texas. In, Jones v. White, No. 

H-03-2286, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61685, at *6-7 (S.D. Tex. 2007), the District Court found 

that $250.00 per hour rate was a reasonable hourly rate for a Title III ADA attorney with no 

ADA experience whatsoever. The Court held, “Relatively few lawyers have experience in 

litigating the type of ADA claims involved in this case, dealing with complex regulatory 

requirements for wheelchair access to streets and sidewalks. Even fewer lawyers specialize in 

this area.” Id. Since 2007, the average hourly rate in the Eastern District of Texas and all other 

jurisdictions have significantly increased. The most similar jurisdiction to this jurisdiction is the 

Dallas/Fort Worth Jurisdiction (Northern District of Texas). In the case of Sapp v. Snuffer's

Rests., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-273-M, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142172, at *17 (N.D. Tex. 

2010), the Court declared Plaintiff’s counsel rates of $400 and $350 per hour as reasonable.1

Rates ranging from $275 to $500 per hour have been found by Courts in other 

jurisdictions to be reasonable in similar types of litigation. See, In re Domestic Air Transp., 

supra, (rates up to $500 per hour reasonable); Dillard v. City o Elba, 863 F. Supp. 1550; Knight 

v. State of Ala., 824 F.Supp. 1022, 1027 (N.D. Ala. 1993); Cuban Museum of Arts & Culture, 

Inc. v. City of Miami, 771 F.Supp. 1190 (S.D. Fla. 1991).

On October 22, 2020, Judge Hoyt in the Southern District of Texas entered an Order (DE 

17) in Vanderploeg v. Rey Del Pollo Inc. & Them K. Le (20-CV-00061), agreeing my hourly rate 

of $300.00 per hour is reasonable.

1 Looking at the supporting Affidavit in that case, the attorney who claimed a $400.00 hourly rate 

was admitted to practice since 1975 and engaged in over 200 jury trials. The attorney who 

claimed a $350.00 an hour rate was practicing for 20 years.

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 62
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

8

Mr. Schapiro has been practicing law for 18 years. Since 2008, Mr. Schapiro has 

litigated (Plaintiff and Defendant) approximately 2,000 public accommodation cases under Title 

III of the ADA, representing plaintiffs and defendants (many more plaintiff cases). Additionally, 

Mr. Schapiro has litigated complex commercial litigation cases, probate litigation and family law 

matters. Mr. Schapiro is admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Florida United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Texas, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Texas, United States District Court of Eastern District of 

Missouri, United States District of Colorado, Northern District of Illinois and The United States 

Court of Claims. Mr. Schapiro’s current rate is $300.00 per hour. 

As part of his Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Plaintiff is seeking an additional 

$300.00 re-inspection fee to cover the prospective cost of re-inspecting the property to confirm 

Defendant complies with the default judgment. Several federal courts have specifically awarded 

a reinspection fee as a reimbursed future litigation expense under the ADA. See Kennedy v. 

Radio Rd. Plaza Invs., LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3135, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 

2017)(reducing award for re-inspection fee from $1,000 to $300); Norkunas v. HPT Cambridge, 

LLC, 969 F.Supp.2d 184, 200, (D. Mass. 2013)(awarding $750 for re-inspection fee); Cusson v. 

Illuminations I, Inc., 2013 WL 103225, at *6 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2013)(awarding a $350 reinspection fee where Plaintiff hired an expert to reinspect the property, defendant did not object 

to payment of the expense); Hoewischer v. Cowart, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185848, at *19 

(M.D. Fla. June 8, 2012) )(reducing an award for reinspection fees from $750 to $350); Houston 

v. Petrol Enters., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188683, *12 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2012)(reducing an 

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 63
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

9

award for reinspection fees from $750 to $350); Fox v. The Marquis Corp., 2010 WL 1010871, 

at *8 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2010) (awarding a $350 expert re-inspection fee, defendant agreed to 

pay reasonable costs and litigation expenses); Fox v. Cohen Ventures, LLC, 2009 WL 1393348, 

at *8 (S.D. Fla. May 15, 2009)(awarding a $350 expert re-inspection fee). Plaintiff seeks a 

$300.00 reinspection fee, which is less than the average reinspection fee awarded by other 

courts.

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE: UNABLE TO CONFER

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d) I hereby certify that a copy of this Motion for Attorney's 

Fees, was served upon Defendant via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested on ______, 

2024, advising him that this Motion for Fees and Costs will be filed by __________. No 

communication was forthcoming from Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter an Order awarding 

Plaintiff his counsel reasonable attorney’s fees and costs totaling $4,975.84 comprising of

($3,990.00 attorney’s fees + $405.00 filing fee + $215.50 Process Service fees + $65.34 in 

postage and a $300.00 Reinspection Fee) = $4,975.84.

/s/ Douglas S. Schapiro

Douglas S. Schapiro

State Bar No. 54538FL

Schapiro Law Group, P.L

Attorneys for Plaintiff

7301-A W. Palmetto Rd., #100A

Boca Raton, FL 33433

Tele: (561) 807-7388

Email: Schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 64
SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 100A • Boca Raton, Florida 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed 

electronically using the CM/ECF system on __ of May, 2024.

/s/ Douglas S. Schapiro

Douglas S. Schapiro

State Bar No. 54538FL

Schapiro Law Group, P.L

Case 4:23-cv-01109-ALM Document 9 Filed 06/03/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 65