Opinion ID: 796260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 As this is the third time that these parties have come before our court, there is a long history behind this case. DiLaura, as a member and Executive Director of the Apostolate for the Eucharistic Life, received a charitable donation of real estate in the Township of Ann Arbor for hosting guests for religious prayer and contemplation. In conjunction with this proposed use, DiLaura planned on providing complementary food and overnight accommodations for approximately eight guests throughout each week. 4 DiLaura sent a letter to the zoning official asking whether the plaintiffs' proposed property use under the donation was prohibited by the defendants' zoning ordinance. The zoning official responded that DiLaura was prohibited under the zoning laws from using the property in the way in which he proposed. DiLaura filed an application for a variance, but the zoning board of appeals denied the variance application. 5 The First Amended Complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and alleged violations of, inter alia, the plaintiffs' right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. U.S. CONST. amend I; 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (RFRA). The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the plaintiffs' claims were not ripe. 6 In DiLaura v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 30 Fed.Appx. 501, 505-07 (6th Cir.2002) (unpublished opinion) ( DiLaura I ), we concluded that the plaintiffs did have standing and that their claims were ripe for review. Although we disagreed with the district court's reasoning, we agreed that there was no First Amendment violation. Id. at 508. However, we concluded that the plaintiffs' RFRA claim was still valid. Although parts of RFRA had recently been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court while DiLaura I was on appeal, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (RLUIPA), which amended RFRA. DiLaura I, 30 Fed.Appx. at 507. Thus, we remanded to the district court to determine whether the defendants were violating the plaintiffs' rights under RFRA as amended by RLUIPA. Id. at 510. 7 After DiLaura I, on November 14, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, formally claiming a violation under RLUIPA. On December 16, 2002, the township board of trustees, on the recommendation of the planning commission, granted the plaintiffs a conditional permit to operate a bed and breakfast. Although the defendants asserted that they would not enforce it, a bed and breakfast permit requires that the permitee charge guests a fee and prohibits serving alcohol or meals other than breakfast and light snacks. These restrictions, if enforced, would interfere with the plaintiffs' plan to provide services for free and to serve lunch, dinner, and communion wine. 8 On remand from DiLaura I, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendants' bed and breakfast proposal violated RLUIPA. While acknowledging that the defendants were not going to enforce the bed and breakfast provisions at the present time, the district court stated that it had to look at what [the bed and breakfast ordinance] says and take it [as] exactly what [the defendants] could do. Joint Appendix (J.A.) at 838 (Mot. Hr'g on Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (Hr'g) at 27). The district court did not formally grant an injunction, but, rather, stated on the record that the defendants could never enforce the bed and breakfast provisions against the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, and we affirmed. DiLaura v. Twp. of Ann Arbor, 112 Fed.Appx. 445, 446 (6th Cir.2004) (unpublished opinion) ( DiLaura II ). 9 This brings us to the issue before us today. After DiLaura II, the plaintiffs requested attorney fees and costs associated with litigating this case. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees and costs in the amount of $178,535.61. The district court found that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties, but reduced the award by sixty percent to $72,214.24. The parties cross-appealed to this court; we have jurisdiction over their appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.