Concerned Pastors for Soc. Action v. Khouri

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES

DAVID M. LAWSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On March 12, 2024, the Court found the City of Flint in civil contempt of court due to its repeated failures to meet deadlines for various phases of the replacement and restoration operation prescribed by a settlement agreement to rid the City of lead service lines in its water delivery system. Although the Court denied much of the relief requested in the plaintiffs' motion for contempt, it permitted the plaintiffs to recover, as a compensatory sanction, the attorney's fees and expenses associated with litigating the contempt motion. The plaintiffs now seek an award of $62,367.56, representing $51,393.50 in attorney's fees and $10,974.06 in costs and expenses. The request is well-documented and represents an amount substantially below the plaintiffs' actual entitlement. None of the City's arguments for a reduction of the award is persuasive. The Court will grant the motion.

I.

The Court issued an order on March 12, 2024 holding the City of Flint in civil contempt of this Court's orders that established extended deadlines for several aspects of its obligation to complete water service line replacement and restoration work that it promised to carry out when it entered into a Settlement Agreement on March 28, 2017. The City had failed to finish its outreach obligation by its March 1, 2023 deadline, it failed to ascertain the scope of its remaining restoration work by its May 1, 2023 deadline, and it failed to provide a compliant list of all the properties where it had completed visual restoration inspections. Each of these tasks was detailed in the Court's February 24, 2023 enforcement order. The Court, however, declined to hold Flint's elected mayor in contempt.

By the time of the contempt ruling, the City represented that it had completed most of the tasks for which it was called out by the plaintiffs, albeit belatedly. Some, though, still were left undone. Nonetheless, the Court determined that coercive sanctions were not useful, although compensatory sanctions were appropriate. See Elec. Workers Pension Tr. Fund of Loc. Union #58, IBEW v. Gary's Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 378-79 (6th Cir. 2003) (stating that a court may impose coercive or compensatory sanctions as a civil contempt remedy) (citing United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947)); see also United States v. Work Wear Corp., 602 F.2d 110, 115 (6th Cir. 1979) (“Civil contempt is meant to be remedial and to benefit the complainant either by coercing the defendant to comply with the Court's order via a conditional fine or sentence or by compensating the complainant for any injury caused by the defendant's disobedience.”). The Court, therefore, ordered that the plaintiffs could recover as a contempt sanction their attorney's fees, costs, and expenses (including expert witness expenses) incurred in bringing their motion for contempt and the ensuing proceedings. The Court permitted the plaintiffs

to apply for that compensation by filing an appropriate motion with proper documentation of fees, costs, and expenses.

The plaintiffs filed their motion seeking attorney's fees and expenses of $62,367.56: $51,393.50 in fees and $10,974.06 in expenses. Cognizant of the City's financial constraints, they represent that the request excludes more than three quarters of the total time they spent litigating contempt motion. In total, the plaintiffs seek compensation for 178.9 hours of work by three attorneys and a paralegal. The plaintiffs attached to their motion detailed billing entries. See ECF No. 282-10, PageID.13296-322. The fee portion of the request breaks down as follows:

0	Hours Spent	Hours Sought	Rate	Fee
Attorney Melanie Calero	296.4	53.7	$300	$16,110
Attorney Adeline Rolnick	211.2	48.7	$325	$15,827.50
Paralegal Nicole Vandal	83.5	34.4	$125	$4,300
Attorney Sarah Tallman	132.0	42.1	$360	$15,156
Attorney Michael Wall	30.6	0.0	$500	--
TOTAL	753.7	178.9	$51,393.50

The plaintiffs state that they reduced their request in four ways. First, they limited the request to the time spent by three attorneys (Calero, Rolnick, and Tallman) and a paralegal (Vandal) - excluding entirely the work of other members of the litigation team, including environmental litigator Michael Wall, the plaintiffs' local counsel, and several additional paralegals. Second, counsel reviewed line-item entries to reduce or eliminate time claimed for 1) internal strategy discussions and meetings, 2) meet-and-confer meetings with more than one attorney present, 3) editing work product and drafting correspondence, 4) consultation with an unnecessary aerial imagery expert, 5) and time spent traveling to the motion hearing. Third, they applied a 40% reduction to Calero and Rolnick's billing entries to account for work that could have been done more quickly by more experienced attorneys. Fourth, they applied an across-the-

board 30% reduction to account for their unsuccessful argument that Flint's Mayor should be held in contempt and in light of the City's financial position.

The plaintiffs also seek $10,974.06 in costs and expenses, which include the fees for expert witness Noah Attal and counsel's travel costs for the contempt hearing. Again, the plaintiffs attached to their motion detailed time entries for their expert, disclosing that he worked for 102.65 hours at a $55 hourly rate. ECF No. 282-10, PageID.13324-25. And again, they limited their expense submissions by excluding costs for food and taxis. ECF No. 282, PageID.13188.

The City argues that the plaintiffs' fee request should be reduced substantially for two reasons. First, it suggests that the plaintiffs did not achieve a high degree of success in the contempt proceedings because the Court did not grant all the relief the plaintiffs sought. Second, it maintains that the Court should not award the plaintiffs' expenses for their travel to Michigan for the contempt hearing because the plaintiffs would not agree to hold the hearing...