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

Heading: The BZA Proceedings

Text: 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)).