Source: http://livrozilla.com/doc/1750084/united-states-district-court-eastern-district-of
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:59:33+00:00

Document:
“second-parent adoption” law, MCL 750.24.
by Lisa Brown in July of 2013. Mr. Bullard advocated against Plaintiffs while Ms.
judgment (R 152), in favor of Plaintiffs.
reimbursement of all taxable costs and attorneys’ fees as provided in 42 U.S.C.
in complex federal civil rights litigation.
basis in this case to exceed the lodestar values set forth above.
8. The Defendants do not consent to the relief sought herein.
expenses themselves through their fundraising efforts.
in the amount of $1,915,970.
calculation and grant Plaintiffs all other relief to which they may be entitled.
Counsel for Petitioners April DeBoer, Jayne Rowse, et al.
the Vindication of Civil Rights Through the Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, 80 Colum.
L. Rev. 370, 377 (1980).
of the taxable costs to the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought under §1983.
required by L.R. 54.1.2(b) to support their respective fee requests.
attorney to undertake the representation of a meritorious civil rights case.” Id. 551552.
reputation.” Perdue, 559 U.S. at 563-564 (Thomas, J., concurring), citing Blum v.
federal litigation, no matter the subject matter.” Cotton v. City of Eureka, 889 F.
may be non-pecuniary in nature.” Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 95 (1989).
not they are filed as actions under §1983.
are billing for the same telephone conversation or meeting.
efficient than one attorney’s trying to wade through the issue alone.
Tchemkou v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 506, 511-512 (7th Cir. 2008).
not disproportionate to the overall time spent by counsel on the merits of the case.
overall hours expended on the “the main case”).
cases, including cases in which the attorneys have achieved “exceptional success” .
entitlement to an enhancement falls on the party seeking the enhancement. Id. 553.
consistent with the central objectives of the basic civil-rights statute, 42 U.S.C.
did what the child advocate could not do: They initiated this lawsuit.
Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968), and Texas State Teachers Assn. v.
someone other than the attorney general must step forward.
v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 297 F.3d 431, 434 (6th Cir. 2002).
adjusting the fee based on historical rates to reflect its present value. Id. 556.
Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 745 (6th Cir 2005).
allow an enhancement to the lodestar.
published works) germane to eight different disciplines. See discussion, infra.
intra-library system for use during depositions and trial.
ramifications of guardianships versus adoptions, and wills.
1128,1144 (D. Or. 2014); Latta v. Otter, 19 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1081, n. 14 (D.
Fisher-Borne v. Smith, 14 F. Supp. 3d 699, 710 (M.D.N.C. 2014) ; Love v.
Beshear, 989 F. Supp.2d 536, 549 (W.D. Ky. 2014); Majors v. Jeames, 48 F.
Supp. 3d 1310, 1313 (D. Ariz. 2014); Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla 54 F. Supp.
families.” DeBoer, 135 S.Ct. at 2600.
helped fund this litigation through the proceeds of the sale of her home.
Circuit to the Supreme Court, when thirty-six states enjoyed marriage equality.
heightened scrutiny based on sexual orientation and gender discrimination.
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
practices were shut down for long periods over the last three years.
more often, with more success than any other lawyer in America.
garnered in the past for similar litigation.
anti-gay protesters every morning on the way into court.
the case is a factor to be considered in awarding fees).
gay and lesbian people in this state is belied by Michigan’s most recent election.
the basis of their religious beliefs.
their current hourly rate in this case. Perdue , 559 U.S. at 556.
historical intended purpose of §1988.
Certainly, the DeBoer case qualifies as an exceptional success. Tobin v.
obtained” is the “most critical factor”), quoting from Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S.
abandoned child outcome rationales for the bans altogether. See e.g., Love v.
from its overblown claims based upon Professor Mark Regnerus’s testimony.
success”, a solo practitioner bringing a previously unrecognized cause of action).
even though many paralegals and law clerks were utilized throughout the lawsuit.
of law. She is not billing for time spent attending the trial.
rates and in number of hours billed to avoid unjustified duplicate billings.
42 USC §1988 be granted.
Certificate of Service were served upon Assistant Attorney General Joseph E.

References: §1983
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 §1983
 v. 
 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1988
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 §1988