noting that attorneys must comply with Local Rule 54.1, which requires attorneys to “[mjaintain a complete, separate, and accurate record of time (to the nearest 1/10 of an hour) devoted to the particular action, recorded contemporaneously with the time expended, for each attorney and each specific activity involved in the action (i.e., not just ‘research’ or ‘conference’)” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- noting that attorneys must comply with Local Rule 54.1, which requires attorneys to “[mjaintain a complete, separate, and accurate record of time (to the nearest 1/10 of an hour) devoted to the particular action, recorded contemporaneously with the time expended, for each attorney and each specific activity involved in the action (i.e., not just ‘research’ or ‘conference’)” (emphasis added)
- reducing the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to Plaintiffs by 25% because of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to comply with the local rule governing the filing of attorney time records
- plaintiffs who objected to redistricting plan that court ultimately adopted nevertheless "prevailed” because they “fully succeeded in their suit to strike down” the unconstitutional plan
- the defendant’s “good faith” argument did not demonstrate “strong showing” of special circumstances
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HATCHETT, Chief Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
The plaintiffs in this action seek attorney’s fees and costs against the defendants, under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1988 . To warrant an award of attorney’s fees and costs, the plaintiffs must establish that they are the “prevailing parties.” The majority of this three-judge court has found that plaintiffs have met the prevailing party standard; therefore, the majority’s finding dictates the ruling — the plaintiffs are prevailing parties.
I dissent, however, from the majority’s .ruling on the application of the Northern District of Florida’s Local Rule 54.1, which governs motions for attorney’s fees because the plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with the filing requirements for attorney’s fees under Local Rule 54.1. Noncompliance with Local Rule 54.1 mandates a disallowance of attorney’s fees for the “omitted period.” N.D.Fla.Loc.R. 54.1(B). Instead of following the plain language of Local Rule 54.1, the majority imposes a lesser sanction, a twenty- *1129 five percent reduction of the plaintiffs’ attorney fee request. Because strict obedience to Local Rule 54.1 is of importance in the troublesome area of attorney’s fees, I dissent from this portion of the majority opinion. The majority’s reasons for minimizing the sanction against the plaintiffs for noncompliance with Local Rule 54.1 are not convincing.
Accordingly, because the majority’s vote establishes the law of the ease, the prevailing party finding is binding on me. Nevertheless, I dissent from the ruling regarding sanctions.