## Facts

- Donald Hansen sued Deercreek Plaza, LLC under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seeking injunctive relief for alleged accessibility barriers at Deercreek’s property.
- Hansen was represented by South Florida attorney Samuel C. Aurilio.
- The parties resolved the merits through a court-approved consent decree.
- The consent decree required Deercreek to pay Hansen’s “reasonable” attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, expert fees, and costs, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the decree.
- After the consent decree, the parties attempted (but failed) to agree on the amount of fees and related amounts Deercreek would pay.
- Hansen filed a verified motion seeking attorneys’ fees and related expenses and costs (including a requested $295 hourly rate for Aurilio), supported by Aurilio’s experience, prior ADA fee awards, and statements from other ADA lawyers regarding market rates.
- Deercreek opposed the request, arguing that the hourly rate and several time entries and expense items were excessive, duplicative, clerical, or insufficiently documented.
- The billing records included entries the court viewed as questionable for a straightforward case, such as time to review routine orders and potentially duplicative review of the complaint after time had already been billed to prepare it.

## Issues

1. Whether Hansen, as the prevailing party under the ADA and the consent decree, was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, expert fees, and costs.
2. What hourly rate was reasonable for Hansen’s counsel in the relevant South Florida market for this type of ADA Title III case.
3. Whether the hours billed and non-fee items sought (expenses, expert fees, and costs) were reasonably incurred and adequately supported, or should be reduced.

## Decision

- The court held that Hansen was entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and under the consent decree’s fee clause.
- Applying the lodestar method, the court found the requested $295 hourly rate was higher than a reasonable market rate for this relatively straightforward ADA access case and reduced the rate.
- The court reduced the compensable hours by excluding or trimming entries it found excessive, redundant, duplicative, or clerical.
- The court reviewed expenses, expert fees, and costs and reduced or disallowed items that were inadequately documented, unnecessary, or more like overhead than compensable litigation expenses.
- The motion was granted in part and denied in part, resulting in an award lower than the amount requested.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 12205, a court may award a prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation expenses and costs, in ADA actions.
- A plaintiff who secures relief through a consent decree may be treated as a prevailing party for purposes of statutory fee shifting.
- The Eleventh Circuit lodestar method governs: the court determines (1) reasonable hours and (2) a reasonable hourly rate, and multiplies them to reach the lodestar; adjustments may be made when appropriate.
- A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar work by lawyers with comparable skill and experience; prior fee awards and attorney affidavits may be considered but are not controlling.
- The fee applicant bears the burden to submit time records and supporting material sufficient to show the claimed rate and hours are reasonable.
- Courts must exclude time that would not be billed to a paying client, including hours that are excessive, redundant, duplicative, clerical, or poorly supported.
- Even when a consent decree obligates a defendant to pay “reasonable” fees and expenses, the court independently determines reasonableness and may reduce unsupported or unnecessary charges.

## Conclusion

In this post-consent-decree ADA Title III fee order, the court applied the lodestar framework to determine what the consent decree and § 12205 required Deercreek to pay: reasonable fees and related litigation charges. Although Hansen was entitled to recover such amounts as the prevailing party, the court concluded that counsel’s requested $295 hourly rate exceeded the reasonable local market rate for this kind of case and that several billing and expense items were excessive, duplicative, clerical, or insufficiently supported, so it reduced the request and awarded a lower total.


Hansen v. Deercreek Plaza, LLC, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (2006)