Opinion ID: 4027535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ancillary Proceedings

Text: Appellants argue that they are entitled to the fees from the 2003 Action because the 2006 Action was a continuation of that earlier litigation. Even if this is true, the parties stipulated in the 2003 Action that there would be no award of attorneys’ fees. The district court 15 No. 15-1449, H.D.V. - Greektown, LLC v. City of Detroit memorialized that stipulation in its subsequent order: “By stipulation of the parties, all claims in this action are dismissed without prejudice and without costs or an award of attorneys[’] fees to any party.” R. 84-6 2d Am. Compl. Ex. B, at 3 (Page ID #2517). As the district court explained during the fees proceedings below, “the placement of the phrase ‘without prejudice’ in that sentence indicates that the substantive claims were dismissed without prejudice, but any claims for costs or fees were dismissed with prejudice.” R. 169 Order Adopting R. & R. 7 (Page ID #5220). Given their own stipulation, and the district court’s order, Appellants are not entitled to fees related to the 2003 Action.
Appellants argue that they are entitled to attorneys’ fees for the hours expended on Councilwoman Conyers’s criminal prosecution because those allegations were the sole basis for submitting the second amended complaint and because Appellants were required to participate in the proceedings. The City, however, was neither a party to nor involved in the criminal proceedings. To the extent that the bribes justified the filing of the second amended complaint, the changes made were minimal, as Appellants added only factual allegations. Finally, as the magistrate judge noted, the claimed hours related to the criminal proceedings included time spent “[meeting] with reporters and review[ing] articles and television reports.” R. 162 R. & R. 8 (Page ID #5121). Fees incurred for such activity do not comport with § 1988’s purpose to support civil rights litigation. We therefore conclude that Appellants are not entitled to fees related to the criminal proceedings.
Appellants also argue that they are entitled to the full fees from the BZA proceedings. The magistrate judge concluded that, to the extent that Appellants were entitled to fees for the 16 No. 15-1449, H.D.V. - Greektown, LLC v. City of Detroit City’s attempts to enforce Condition 18, those portions of the proceedings were “relatively minor,” and the remaining time in the BZA proceedings was not reasonably expended on the pending lawsuit. Id. at 12 (Page ID #5125). The district court agreed. We conclude that this determination was not an abuse of discretion. The bulk of the proceedings were related to zoning violations charging K & P with “increasing the number of dancers and the number of days on which the entertainment was provided.” Id. Those allegations had nothing to do with the constitutional challenges to the zoning and sign ordinances, which pertained to prior restraint and the City’s refusal to resolve the permit applications in a timely manner. Although there is some evidence that the City had attempted to enforce Condition 18 during the proceedings, Appellants do not show that it was an issue substantial enough to justify an award of full feesa burden that falls entirely on their shoulders. See Webb v. Bd. of Educ. of Dyer Cty., Tenn., 471 U.S. 234, 242 (1985) (“[T]he party seeking an award of fees has the burden of submitting ‘evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed.’” (citation omitted)).