Opinion ID: 754158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: other issues arising in glover

Text: 70 A. The District Court's Denial of Defendants' Objections To The Award As Unreasonable Was Not Clearly Erroneous 71 Defendants objected to 47.4 hours in plaintiffs' fee petition as frivolous and unnecessary; 48.7 hours as excessive and inappropriate; and 18.9 hours as non-Glover related. The District Court found that defendants' broad objections and conclusory allegations were an insufficient basis for denying these fees. 72 On appeal, defendants make absolutely no effort to add specificity to their objections or to otherwise substantiate their claims. Defendants argue that plaintiffs have filed unnecessary and frivolous pleadings without identifying those pleadings for this Court or explaining why any such pleadings were unnecessary or frivolous. Defendants' argument that certain fees were non-Glover related is just a rehashing of their prevailing party argument, which we have rejected on numerous occasions. The District Court was not clearly erroneous in rejecting defendants' objections as an insufficient basis to deny fees which have been carefully documented by plaintiffs' counsel. 73 B. Whether the District Court Erred in Refusing to Approve An Award of Fees For Paralegals At The Prevailing Market Rate 74 Despite finding that $80 was well within the prevailing market rate for paralegals, the District Court refused to approve that rate because the rate established for paralegals in its 1990 order was $45 per hour. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in so refusing. Plaintiffs could have submitted a petition for a higher rate before or while the services were being rendered if a higher rate was necessary. C. Appeal No. 97-1218 75 The last appeal, No. 97-1218, involves a challenge to the District Court's order of January 31, 1997 enjoining defendants from eliminating funding for provision of legal services to women prisoners at current levels. The order terminated by its own terms upon a decision in appeal No. 96-1931, which was pending at the time of the court's ruling. Thus, the issues raised in appeal no. 97-1218 became moot upon entry of our opinion in Glover V, supra, which decided, among others, appeal no. 96-1931.